GOLU Vs. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code vide Judgment and order dtd. 27/07/2019 and he is suffering the sentence. It is submitted that during trial, the petitioner was in jail and thus, he has undergone the imprisonment for about six years and 50 days. The petitioner has applied for regular parole on account of illness of his father. The respondent No.1 - Divisional Commissioner called the report from the Superintendent of Police and it being adverse vide impugned order dtd. 19/04/2023 declined to grant regular parole, which is impugned herein.

(3.) The State has filed reply affidavit stating that as per Rule 19(3) r/w Rule 4(4) of the Maharashtra Prisons (Mumbai Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, the petitioner is not eligible for furlough on account of adverse police report. Moreover, it is submitted that petitioner was convicted in the case of murder, which makes him dis-entitled for relief claimed. The petitioner has pleaded that in past, thrice he was released on parole and on each time, he returned on due date. During the said period, no offence was registered against him nor such grievance is made by the Authority.