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
7 paragraphs · 171 wordsSabina, J
Petitioner has filed the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking regular parole for 48 days.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has undergone more than three years of actual sentence. Jail conduct of the petitioner is satisfactory. Petitioner shall not misuse the concession of parole.
Mr. I.N. Mehta, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, on the other hand, has opposed the petition.
Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has already undergone more than three years of actual sentence and on the last date of hearing, wife of the petitioner had appeared before the Court and had submitted that she had no objection if the petition filed by the petitioner for parole was allowed.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, petition is allowed. Petitioner be admitted for parole for a period of four weeks, subject to the satisfaction of respondent No. 4.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.