RADHE JHOLIDAS MANDAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both sides.

(2.) The petitioner preferred an application for death parole on 14/5/2016, on the ground that his mother expired on 30/4/2016. The said application was rejected by order dated 3/5/2017. Being aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed by order dated 1/7/2017, hence, this petition.

(3.) The application of the petitioner for death parole came to be rejected on the ground that a prisoner who is convicted for the offence such as dacoity, terrorist crime, kidnapping, smuggling or under the NDPS Act cannot be granted furlough. Notification dated 26/8/2016 states that the prisoners who cannot be granted furlough, are also not eligible to be released on parole. The learned APP placed reliance on Rule 4 (13) which states that a prisoner is not eligible to be released on furlough, if he has been convicted for the offence of dacoity, terrorist crime, kidnapping, smuggling or under the NDPS Act. As stated earlier, this Notification is dated 26/8/2016 and the application of the petitioner is dated 14/5/2016, hence, this Notification cannot be made applicable to the case of the present petitioner. Moreover, Rule 4(13) of Prisons (Bombay FurloughParole) Rules, 1959, speaks of 'dacoity' which falls under Sec. 395 of the Indian Penal Code whereas the petitioner has been convicted for the offence of 'robbery' which falls under Sec. 392 of the Indian Penal Code. In this view of the matter, also this Notification cannot be made applicable to the case of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner does not fall under Rule 4 (13). Thus, the grounds on which the application of the petitioner for parole came to be rejected are not good grounds and deserves to be set aside.