KATHADABHAI KIDYABHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Learned APP Mr. N.D.Gohil appearing for the respondents has waived service of rule on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) Present petition has been filed by the petitioner prisoner through jail wherein the petitioner prisoner KATHADABHAI KIDYABHAI has submitted that an application was made by him to the Superintendent, Central Prison, Baroda and request was made to release him on parole leave for a period of thirty days for house repairing. His application dated 18th November, 2003 has been rejected by the Additional District Magistrate Baroda by order dated 30.1.2003. Said order dated 30.1.2003 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Baroda has been challenged by the petitioner prisoner through jail on the ground that the said order has been passed by the Additional District Magistrtate, Baroda only after taking into consideration the police opinion and the statements which were obtained by the police authority and without taking into consideration the jail record of the petitioner. Against the said order, the petitioner has submitted the present application before this court alleging that the Additional District Magistrate, Baroda has passed the said order wrongly by relying only on the adverse police opinion and without considering the jail record of the petitioner. The petitioner has, therefore, prayed for quashing and setting aside the said order made by the Additional District Magistrate, Baroda and for granting him leave as prayed for in his application.

(3.) I have considered the order made by the Additional District Magistrate Baroda as well as the application made by the petitioner and the jail report placed by the respondents on the record of this petition. Looking to this jail report, the petitioner has not enjoyed any parole leave when he was in jail since more than nine years. On four occasions, he enjoyed furlough leave and on each occasion, he surrendered in time. No punishment has been imposed in jail by the concerned authority and looking to his jail report on the record of this petition, his conduct in jail has been found to be satisfactory. From the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Baroda, it is clear that he has not considered the jail report of the petitioner but has considered only police opinion and some statements adverse to the petitioner.