SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Apparao Bahadur Ghuge (In Jail) vs Superintendent, Central Prison … on 21 June, 2017

1 criwp172.17



Apparao Bahadur Ghuge,
C-4374, detained in Central
Prison, Amravati. … PETITIONER


1. Superintendent,
Central Prison, Amravati.

2. Divisional Commissioner, Amravati.

3. Additional Director General of Police
and Inspector General of Prison,
Maharashtra, Pune – 1. … RESPONDENTS

Smt. Sneha Dhote, Advocate (appointed) for the petitioner.
Smt. N.R. Tripathi, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.


DATED : 21ST JUNE, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Prasanna B. Varale, J.)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the

consent of the parties.

2. The petitioner is undergoing the sentence and is lodged at

Central Prison, Amravati. The petitioner was convicted and awarded

sentence for commission of offence under Sections 302, 498A of the Indian

Penal Code vide judgment and order dated 03.12.2012 passed by the learned

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Washim. The petitioner submitted

::: Uploaded on – 22/06/2017 23/06/2017 00:57:00 :::
2 criwp172.17

an application before the respondent/ authorities for grant of parole on the

ground that he wanted to visit his family members at his place of residence.

This application was submitted on 26.07.2016. The report was called from

the Superintendent of Police, Washim. On 24.09.2016, a negative report was

forwarded. By communication dated 26.09.2016, it was informed that the

proposal for grant of parole leave is remitted back to the prison authority in

view of the amendment in the Rules by Gazette Notification dated 26th

August, 2016.

3. Smt. Dhote, the learned Counsel (appointed) to represent the

petitioner submits that the application filed by the petitioner was much prior

to the Gazette Notification. She further submits that till the communication

dated 26.09.2016, there is nothing on record to submit that the negative

police report was received by the authorities. She also submits that in such a

situation the authorities were not required to return back the proposal for

grant of parole leave. It could have been decided by the authorities on the

basis of the Rules prevailing on the date when the application was filed by

the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, in support of her

submission that the authorities erred in not deciding the application giving

retrospective effect to the Gazette Notification and sitting tight over the

application of the petitioner, places reliance on the judgment of this Court

dated 09th June, 2017 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 62 of 2017. The reply filed

by the State shows that the petitioner submitted an application for grant of

parole leave not only on the ground of visiting his family members but on the

ground of illness of his son.

::: Uploaded on – 22/06/2017 23/06/2017 00:57:00 :::

3 criwp172.17

4. Though the authorities in reply made an attempt to support the

order/communication dated 26.09.2016, in our opinion, the authorities

could not have returned back the proposal. The authorities were expected to

decide the application for grant of parole as per the Rules prevailing and the

material available with the authorities. We find considerable merit in the

submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

5. In view of the aforesaid facts, the petition needs to be allowed.

The petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (i). The authorities to decide

the application seeking grant of parole submitted by the petitioner on

26.07.2016 as expeditiously as possible and preferably within three weeks

from today. The fees of the learned Counsel appointed to represent the

petitioner are quantified at Rs.1,500/-.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.



::: Uploaded on – 22/06/2017 23/06/2017 00:57:00 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Copyright © 2022 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation