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
15 paragraphs · 687 wordsU.V. Bakre, J.—Heard Ms. Matkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Amonkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents.
Rule. Rule is made returnable and heard forthwith, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 18/06/2014 passed by the respondent No. 2 whereby the prayer of the petitioner for parole has been rejected. The petitioner has further prayed for release on parole for 30 days on bond of minimum sum, considering that he is in jail.
The petitioner was arrested on 10/02/2005 and convicted on 31/01/2006 for committing an offence u/s 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and is undergoing the sentence of 12 years and fine. According to him, in the last eight years, he has been released on parole on five occasions and he abided by the conditions imposed on him. This time, he had filed an application for parole on the ground of sickness of his mother. It was alleged that the petitioner''s ailing mother is under treatment for Pelvic Fraction and Brick and has been advised to undergo surgery, for which she needs an attendant.
Respondent No. 2 rejected the application for parole after calling for report from the Superintendent of Police, Kullu, District Kullu (H.P.) and after going through the said report and after consideration of the provisions of Rule 324 of the Goa Prison Rules, 2006 and finding that the police did not mention anything about the surgery as claimed by the prisoner. Respondent No. 2, therefore, did not find any emergent situation as per the provisions of Rule 324 of the Goa Prison Rules, 2006 and, therefore, rejected the application.
Rule 324 of the Goa Prison Rules provides thus:
Parole can be granted to the prisoner in the event of emergent situations like death or serious illness of father, mother, brother, sister, spouse and children and also marriage of brother, sister and children or for any other sufficient reasons.
As submitted by Ms. Matkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, the report of the Specialist Medical officer of Mahatma Gandhi Medical Service Complex, Khaneri, Rampur, Bushahr (H.P.), a Government Hospital reveals that the mother of the petitioner is ill and is suffering from Pelvic Fraction and Brick and is required to undergo surgery for the same at the earliest and she needs one attendant to look after her during her hospital stay. Previously, by judgment dated 29/06/2012 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 49/2012, the learned Single Judge of this Court (F.M. Reis, J.) had directed respondent No. 2 to grant an application of the petitioner for his release on parole. A certificate from Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Shimla stating that the mother of the petitioner was suffering from Acute Cholecystitis with COPD and one attendant was required to look after her, was produced before the learned Single Judge.
Considering all the above aspects and considering the fact that the order dated 18/06/2014 was passed by respondent No. 2 since nothing was mentioned in the police report about the surgery of the mother, by the prisoner, we are of the considered view that the said order dated 18/06/2014 is liable to be quashed and set aside. Considering the medical papers now produced before this Court, it is found that the mother of the petitioner is required to undergo surgery and she needs one attendant to look after her during her hospital stay.
Ms. Matkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that as and when the date and the period of parole is fixed, the date for surgery would be fixed.
In view of the above the petition is allowed.
(a) Impugned order dated 18/06/2014 is quashed and set aside.
(b) Respondent No. 2 is directed to grant the application of the petitioner for his release on parole on such terms and conditions which respondent No. 2 deems proper.
(c) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
(d) Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
