Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCR.A/1001/2008 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1001 OF 2008
======================================
VIBHABHAI
@ BHURIYO POPAT BHARVAD
THROUGH
PADMABEN VIBHA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & ORS. - Respondent(s)
======================================
Appearance :
Ms.
K. D. Parmar for Petitioner.
Mr. R. C. Kodekar, APP for
Respondent(s).
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE R.H.SHUKLA
Date
: 19/05/2008
ORAL
ORDER
1. Rule.
Mr.
R. C. Kodekar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appears and
waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the opponent- State of
Gujarat.
Having
regard to the facts of the case, the application is taken up for
hearing today.
2. The
present application has been filed by the applicant-wife for grant of
parole for a period of four weeks to the convict prisoner ? Vibha @
Bhuriyo Popatbhai Bharwad, who has been convicted for the offences
under Sections 302, 307, 397 and 423 by the judgement and order dated
27th January, 1997 in Sessions Case No.44 of 1995 by the
Additional Sessions Court, Bharuch and is sentenced to
imprisonment for life.
3. Heard
Ms. K. D. Parmar, learned Advocate for the applicant, and Mr. R. C.
Kodekar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the opponent-State
of Gujarat. Ms. K. D. Parmar has submitted that as the wife of the
convict prisoner is required to undergo the operation for
hysterectomy, which is scheduled to be held on 20th May,
2008, and the presence of the convict prisoner is necessary, the
parole may be granted. On the other hand, Mr. R. C. Kodekar has
submitted that the convict prisoner has been absconding for about
1534 days and looking to the antecedents, the impugned order is
justified. However, Mr. Parmar has submitted that thereafter, the
convict prisoner has been granted parole on five or six occasions and
he has reported in time and no untoward incident is reported. Mr.
Kodekar has submitted that on all such occasions of granting the
parole, there was justifiable reasons. It is stated that the appeal,
being Criminal Appeal No.225 of 1997, has also been dismissed vide
order dated 17th February, 2005. As against that, Ms.
Parmar submitted that the convict prisoner has not filed any further
proceedings before the Honourable Supreme Court challenging the
judgement and order dated 17th February, 2005 in Criminal
Appeal No.225 of 2007.
4. This
Court has considered the submissions advanced by the learned
Advocates for the parties and have gone through the application and
the supporting documents that form part of the application. This
Court has also gone through the jail remarks sheet submitted by the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
5. In
view of the rival submissions, though the convict prisoner has
absconded for 1534 days, but, thereafter, on genuine ground, he was
enlarged on parole. However, in view of the ground mentioned about
operation of the wife, which is scheduled to be held on 20th
May, 2008, this Court is of the opinion that if the convict prisoner
is granted parole for a period of 7 days from the date of his actual
release, it would meet the ends of justice.
6. For
the foregoing reasons, the application succeeds in part.
Accordingly, it is partly allowed. The convict prisoner ? Vibha @
Bhuriyo Popat Bharvad is ordered to be released on parole for a
period of 7 days from the date of his actual release on usual terms
and conditions. The convict prisoner shall surrender to the jail
authority on completion of 7 days from the date of his release
without fail. During the period of parole, the convict prisoner
shall not abuse the liberty granted to him and shall maintain law and
order. Rule is made absolute accordingly to the aforesaid extent.
Direct Service is permitted.
[R.
H. Shukla, J.]
kamlesh*
Top