Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shri Dinesh Arolkar, a convict undergoing a sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment plus a fine of Rs. 1 lakh (default sentence 4 years) under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, filed a Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court at Goa. He challenged the order dated 3/02/2010 of the Government of Goa rejecting his application for parole of 60 days to take care of his ailing mother, who was suffering from cancer. The petitioner had been granted parole practically every year since 2005 on the same ground, including 28 days in 2005, 32 days in 2006, 28 days in 2006, 28 days in 2007, 90 days in 2008, and 50 days in 2009. The impugned order rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner's mother was being looked after by her married daughter. The petitioner's counsel relied on an unreported judgment of the same court in Shri Ramesh C. Singh v. State of Goa & Ors., arguing that the presence of another relative to look after the mother should not be a ground for rejection. The court distinguished that case, noting that it stood on its own facts and that Rule 324 of the Goa Prison Rules, 2006 only provides for parole in case of serious illness of nearest relatives, but does not contemplate granting parole every year for the same illness. Considering that the petitioner had already been granted parole multiple times for the same sickness and that his mother was being looked after by his sister, the court found no fault with the impugned order and dismissed the petition. The court also granted liberty to the petitioner to replace original medical certificates with xerox copies.
Headnote
A) Prisons and Parole - Parole for Serious Illness - Rule 324 of Goa Prison Rules, 2006 - Repeated Parole - The petitioner, a convict undergoing 10 years RI, sought parole for 60 days to take care of his ailing mother suffering from cancer. The court held that Rule 324 does not contemplate granting parole every year for the same illness. The impugned order rejecting parole on the ground that the mother is being looked after by the married daughter was not faulted. (Paras 2-9) B) Criminal Procedure - Parole - Extraordinary Jurisdiction - The court declined to interfere in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, as the petitioner had been granted parole practically every year since 2005 for the same sickness, and the mother was being looked after by the sister. (Paras 8-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a convict is entitled to parole every year on the ground of his mother's serious illness, and whether the rejection of parole on the ground that the mother is being looked after by another relative is valid.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The impugned order rejecting parole is upheld. Liberty granted to the petitioner to replace original medical certificates with xerox copies.
Law Points
- Parole is not a right but a privilege
- Repeated parole on same ground not intended under Rule 324 of Goa Prison Rules
- 2006
- Extraordinary jurisdiction not to be exercised when alternative care available
