KANTILAL NANDLAL JAISWAL Vs. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, NAGPUR DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By order dated 14.03.2019, a Division Bench of this Court framed two questions pertaining to the nature of right of grant of parole to a convicted accused and as to whether proviso introduced to Rule 19(2) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The reference was occasioned because the said Division Bench of this Court found that validity of such a proviso upheld by an earlier judgment of a Division Bench of this Court was required to be reconsidered, in the light of specific contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner in the context of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also because certain new and distinguishing circumstances had arisen after the said earlier judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gajanan Babulal Bathulwar .vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2014 2 BCR(Cri) 544.

(2.) The specific questions referred to the larger Bench read as follows:-

(3.) The aforesaid rules pertaining to furlough and parole were framed under Section 59(5) of the Prisons Act, 1894 as applicable to the State of Maharashtra. The aforesaid section 59(5) of the Prisons Act, 1894 reads as follows:-