Prakash Dadarao Vaidya (In Jail) v. Deputy Inspector General (Prisons)

2006wp88.19 1/2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.88 OF 2019 (Prakash Dadarao Vaidya vs. Deputy Inspector General (Prisons) and others) ______________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

Shri D.R. Upadhyay, Advocate (appointed) for petitioner. Shri M.K. Pathan, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents.

---------- CORAM : P.N. DESHMUKH AND PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, JJ.

DATED : JUNE 20, 2019 Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

The affidavit-in-reply filed by respondents is taken on record.

The petitioner has filed this petition against the order dated 11/9/2018 passed by respondent no.3 by which application of petitioner for parole was rejected.

Without going into merits of the petition, perusal of Rule 19(C) of the Maharashtra Prisons (Mumbai Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 contemplates that prisoner shall not be eligible to be released on parole until completion of six months of actual imprisonment from the date of his last return from parole or furlough leave. Admittedly, petitioner was lastly released on furlough on 18/2/2019 and he returned on 19/3/2019.

2006wp88.19 2/2 In view of above, petitioner is not found to be eligible for his release on parole because period of six months of actual imprisonment is yet to be completed. Hence, petition is dismissed with liberty in favour of petitioner to file a fresh application on completion of period of six months of actual imprisonment. The fee payable to learned Counsel appointed for petitioner is quantified as rupees fifteen hundred.

JUDGE JUDGE khj