KANTILAL NANDLAL JAISWAL Vs. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, NAGPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition principally challenges the vires of Rule 19(2) of the Bombay Parole and Furlough Rules, 1959 (in short, "the Rules, 1959") as amended by the Government Notification dated 16th April, 2018.

(2.) The petitioner is a prisoner, who has been undergoing a life sentence for an offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. He is also simultaneously undergoing sentences of imprisonment awarded to him for the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 449 with the aid of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Presently he is lodged in Nagpur Central Prison.

(3.) The petitioner was granted emergency parole on the ground of marriage of his relative falling in the category of relatives mentioned in Rule 19(1) in 2018. He was released on parole on 27.6.2018 and he surrendered himself before the Prison Authority on 12.7.2018. Soon, thereafter, in August, 2018, petitioner once again applied for parole and this time it was from the category of regular parole. The ground was that Mayadevi, wife of petitioner was critically ill and personal presence of the petitioner at the Critical Hospital, Yavatmal where Mayadevi was undergoing treatment, was necessary in order to take decision on spot in relation to the line of treatment and the multiple medicine regimens prescribed by the doctor. This application was forwarded to the competent Authority, Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur (respondent No.1) for appropriate decision in accordance with law. As a part of procedure, verification report from the Superintendent of Police, Yavatmal was called for. It was received by Superintendent of Police Office vide letter dated 31.8.2018. The verification report was favourable. It confirmed seriousness of indisposition of Mayadevi, her being administered treatment at Critical Hospital, Yavatmal, the surety offered by the petitioner being proper and competent and the respectable residents of the locality of the petitioner in Yavatmal having no objection to release of the petitioner on parole. But, the provision of Rule 19(2) of the Rules 1959, as amended by the Government Notification dated 16th April, 2018 stood as a stumbling block for the authorities to favourably consider the application of the petitioner and the result was its rejection by the respondent No.1 by the order passed on 14.9.2018. The petitioner found the rejection as unacceptable and felt that the amended rule on which the decision was based as in-human, discriminatory, giving unequal treatment to similarly situated prisoners and against the right of the prisoners to be treated with basic dignity that the right to life guaranteed to them.