The Bombay High Court recently allowed a writ petition filed by an inmate currently lodged in Taloja Central Prison, holding that reasons for rejecting his application for parole and the reasons for dismissing the appeal were not in consonance with each other and entirely different reasons are stated in both the orders.
A bench of Justice VK Tahilramani and Justice SK Shinde directed the authorities concerned to consider the petitioner’s application for parole afresh.
The petitioner-inmate had filed an application for parole dated December 12, 2016, which was rejected on March 14, 2017. Thereafter, an appeal against the order of rejection was filed, which was dismissed on June 13, 2017.
While the application was rejected in view of Rule 4(3) of the Maharashtra Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) (Amendment) Rules 2016, the appellate order shows that the application of the petitioner for parole came to be rejected in view of Rules 4(11) and 4(13).
The court said: “It is seen that reasons for rejecting the application and dismissing the appeal are not in consonance with each other and entirely different reasons are stated in both the orders. Such orders cannot be allowed to stand; hence, the orders are quashed and set aside.”