VASANTA BHEDRUJI KHANGAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Heard forthwith by consent parties.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the Sessions Judge, Bhandara vide judgment and order dated 12-8-1992 and he was on bail before conviction during the course of trial. She further contended that the petitioner had filed appeal against the judgment and order of conviction before this Court which has been dismissed. She contended that the marriage of the daughter of the petitioner, by name Jyotikiran, is to be solemnized on 22-4-2003 and the wedding cards are printed. She contended that the petitioner in the past had availed furlough leave on seven occasions and he had surrendered to the Prison Authorities on due dates. She further contended that the Competent Authority is not empowered to grant parole for the wedding purpose and hence, the petitioner has approached this Court for grant of parole for thirty days. She contended that as per Rule 18 (2) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, parole can be granted for the said purpose. In support of this submission, she relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of (Manjulabai Kisna Gulabe v. State of Maharashtra)1, 2003 Bom. C. R. (Cri.) (N. B.)87 : 2002 (3) Mh. L. J. 226.

(3.) LEARNED A. P. P. does not dispute that the marriage of the daughter of the applicant is to be solemnized on 22-4-2003 at Hanuman Mandir (Killa ). Shankarpur, Tahsildar Chimur, District Chandrapur. It is stated in affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondents that the proper enquiry has been made and during the course of enquiry, it is revealed that the wedding ceremony is scheduled on the said date and the proposed surety Dr. Bakaram Shende is ready to stand surety and he holds immoveable property.