EKNATH BALU WARHE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. By Consent, Rule Is Made Returnable Forthwith.

(2.) The petitioner has prayed for parole for a period of 30 days on the ground that the marriage of his niece is to take place on 12.5.2016 and the engagement is on 3.5.2016. Hence, it is prayed that parole may be granted for a period of 30 days. It is seen that the petitioner has not preferred an application to the concerned authority for parole, but he has directly approached this court with the prayer for parole.

(3.) Mr. Khamkar, The Learned Counsel For The Petitioner Relied On the decision of full Bench of this Court in the case of S. Sant Singh @ Pilli Singh Ajit Singh Kalyani v. The Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of Maharashtra, Mantralaya Mumbai & Ors., 2006 AllMR(Cri) 625. He placed reliance on paragraph 26 and 27 of the said decision to contend that a prisoner can directly approach this court with the prayer for parole leave. We have carefully perused the entire decision, more, particularly paragraph 26 and 27 thereof. We find that this decision does not support the contention of Mr. Khamkar that this court can directly entertain the application for parole by bypassing the procedure laid down in Rule 19 to 24 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, (1959) (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). In fact, in the case of S. Sant Singh it is clearly stated that it is for the competent authority or the Government to decide as to whether any parole for any particular period is to be granted. The ratio of the decision in Sant Singh is that even if the appeal of the petitioner is pending before any court, parole can be granted. In this decision nowhere it is held that a prisoner can directly approach this court to pray for release on parole. In fact, as stated earlier this decision holds that it is for the competent authority to decide whether parole is to be granted.