AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 129 wordsThe petitioner has preferred this criminal parole writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
A limited prayer has been made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the application for permanent parole has been pending before the respondent No.2 – The Director General (Jails), Jaipur. Thus, a direction may be issued to respondent No.2 for early disposal of the application filed by the petitioner.
Learned AAG opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
The instant criminal parole writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondent No.2 - The Director General (Jails), Jaipur to consider the application filed by the petitioner and decide the same within a period of two months from the date of receiving certified copy of this order.