Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Amit son of Gajanan Gandhi, a convict lodged in Central Prison, Nagpur, filed a Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, seeking extension of his parole. The petitioner was represented by Advocate Nitesh Samundre, while the respondents, State of Maharashtra and the Superintendent of Prison, were represented by Additional Public Prosecutor T.A. Mirza. The petition was taken up for final hearing by consent. The petitioner's counsel invited the court's attention to Rule 25 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough & Parole) Rules, 1959, arguing that the rule confers discretion on the authority to extend parole for a period of ninety days in all. The counsel contended that the authority failed to exercise this discretion, thereby committing a failure of jurisdiction. The court, after hearing the submissions, observed that Rule 25 indeed provides discretion to extend parole up to a total of 90 days. The court held that the authority's failure to consider this discretion amounted to a failure to exercise jurisdiction. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the authority to consider the petitioner's application for extension of parole afresh in accordance with law. The court also made the rule absolute.
Headnote
A) Prisons Law - Parole Extension - Rule 25 of Prisons (Bombay Furlough & Parole) Rules, 1959 - Discretion of Authority - The court considered whether the authority has discretion to extend parole up to a total of 90 days under Rule 25. The petitioner, a convict, sought extension of parole which was rejected. The court held that Rule 25 confers discretion on the authority to extend parole for a period of ninety days in all, and failure to consider this discretion amounts to failure to exercise jurisdiction. The court directed the authority to consider the petitioner's application for extension of parole in accordance with law. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the authority has discretion under Rule 25 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough & Parole) Rules, 1959 to extend parole beyond the initial period up to a total of 90 days, and whether failure to consider such extension amounts to failure to exercise jurisdiction.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the authority to consider the petitioner's application for extension of parole afresh in accordance with law. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Parole extension
- Discretion of authority
- Rule 25 of Prisons (Bombay Furlough & Parole) Rules
- 1959
- Maximum period of parole 90 days
