Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Roshan alias Chini Danichand Thakur, a convict serving sentence in Nashik Road Central Prison, filed a Criminal Writ Petition challenging the order dated 20th May 2017 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Central Region, Aurangabad, rejecting his request for parole. The petitioner sought parole for 45 days to arrange medical treatment for his mother, who was suffering from a serious ailment. The Deputy Inspector General rejected the request on two grounds: first, that the prison was overcrowded and the petitioner was required for cleaning work, and second, that the petitioner's appeal against conviction was pending before the High Court. The petitioner argued that the rejection was arbitrary and that parole should be granted for compassionate reasons. The State opposed the petition, contending that parole is not a right and that the authorities had valid reasons to reject it. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that parole is a privilege and can be granted for compassionate grounds. The court found that the reasons for rejection were not sustainable: overcrowding is a systemic issue that cannot be a ground to deny parole to an individual, and pendency of appeal does not bar parole. The court allowed the petition and directed the respondents to release the petitioner on parole for 30 days, subject to conditions including furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 15,000 with one surety, reporting to the nearest police station once a week, and not leaving the jurisdiction of the trial court without permission. The court also directed the petitioner to surrender on the expiry of the parole period.
Headnote
A) Prisons - Parole - Compassionate Grounds - Maharashtra Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 - Rule 19 - The petitioner sought parole for 45 days to arrange medical treatment for his mother, who was suffering from a serious ailment. The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons rejected the request citing overcrowding in the prison and pendency of appeal. The High Court held that parole is not a right but a privilege, and can be granted for compassionate reasons. The court found that the reasons for rejection were not sustainable, as overcrowding is a systemic issue and pendency of appeal does not bar parole. The court directed the respondents to release the petitioner on parole for 30 days on certain conditions. (Paras 1-10) B) Prisons - Parole - Conditions - Maharashtra Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 - The court imposed conditions including furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 15,000 with one surety, reporting to the nearest police station once a week, and not leaving the jurisdiction of the trial court without permission. The court also directed the petitioner to surrender on the expiry of the parole period. (Paras 11-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, a convict, is entitled to parole for the medical treatment of his mother, and whether the rejection of parole on grounds of prison overcrowding and pendency of appeal is valid.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The order dated 20th May 2017 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to release the petitioner on parole for a period of 30 days on conditions including furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 15,000 with one surety, reporting to the nearest police station once a week, and not leaving the jurisdiction of the trial court without permission. The petitioner shall surrender on the expiry of the parole period.
Law Points
- Parole is not a right but a privilege
- Parole can be granted for compassionate reasons including medical treatment of family members
- Prison overcrowding is not a valid ground to deny parole
- Conditions for parole must be reasonable and not arbitrary
