Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shivaji s/o Ganeshrao Jawale, a convict undergoing life imprisonment at Nashik Road Central Prison, filed a Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) challenging the order dated 3rd April 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 carry out agricultural operations and to support his family. The respondents, including the State of Maharashtra and prison authorities, opposed the petition. The High Court, after hearing the parties, allowed the petition and directed the respondents to release the petitioner on parole for a period of 30 days, subject to certain conditions. The court held that the authority must consider the purpose of parole and not impose conditions that defeat the purpose. The court also observed that parole is a reformative process and is intended to provide an opportunity to the prisoner to maintain family and social ties. The period of parole is not to be counted as remission of sentence. The court directed the petitioner to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 and a surety of the like amount, and to report to the police station once a week. The court also directed the petitioner to surrender before the prison authorities on the expiry of the parole period.
Headnote
A) Prison Law - Parole - Agricultural Operations - Maharashtra Prison (Parole and Furlough) Rules, 1959 - Rule 4 - The petitioner, a life convict, sought parole for 45 days to carry out agricultural operations and to support his family. The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner had not completed the requisite period of imprisonment. The High Court held that the authority must consider the purpose of parole and not impose conditions that defeat the purpose. The court directed the respondents to release the petitioner on parole for a period of 30 days on certain conditions, including furnishing a personal bond and surety. (Paras 1-10) B) Prison Law - Parole - Reformative Process - The court observed that parole is a reformative process and is intended to provide an opportunity to the prisoner to maintain family and social ties. The period of parole is not to be counted as remission of sentence. The court emphasized that the authority should not reject parole applications mechanically. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, a convict undergoing life imprisonment, is entitled to be released on parole for agricultural operations and to support his family, and whether the rejection of his parole application by the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons was justified.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to release the petitioner on parole for a period of 30 days on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 and a surety of the like amount, and on the condition that he shall report to the police station once a week. The petitioner shall surrender before the prison authorities on the expiry of the parole period.
Law Points
- Parole is a reformative process
- not a remission of sentence
- parole can be granted for agricultural operations
- family necessities
- and other exigencies
- the authority must consider the purpose of parole and not impose conditions that defeat the purpose
- the period of parole is not to be counted as remission of sentence.
