Created byFuzzy Cloud

High Court of Gujarat

MANOJ @ MANIYO VIRKUMAR @ RAJUBHAI KESARIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

Disposal
28-REJECTED @ ADM.STAGE

Holding

The Court upheld the prison authority's decision to reject parole, finding no infirmity in the order.

Summary

The petitioner, convicted to ten years' imprisonment, applied for parole leave after the competent authority rejected his earlier application. The rejection was based on adverse police opinion, poor jail conduct, the seriousness of the offence, availability of family financial support, and concerns of breach of peace. The Court noted that parole is a discretionary privilege, not a right, governed by the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. After reviewing the grounds and the authority’s reasons, the Court found no infirmity in the rejection order. Consequently, the application for parole was dismissed.

Issues considered

  • What is the appropriate standard of judicial review for a prison authority's decision to reject a parole application?

Legislation cited

Subjects

parolediscretionary powerprison lawcriminal proceduresentencejudicial review

Judgment

      R/SCR.A/7680/2026                                       ORDER DATED: 05/06/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

     R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (PAROLE LEAVE) NO. 7680 of
                               2026

==========================================================
             MANOJ @ MANIYO VIRKUMAR @ RAJUBHAI KESARI
                               Versus
                      STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
THROUGH JAIL for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR RONAK RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA

                                    Date : 05/06/2026

                                     ORAL ORDER

1.      The applicant, who has been sentenced to undergo 10
years imprisonment, has filed present application through jail
for releasing him on parole leave as the competent authority
has rejected his parole application.

2.      The convict is claiming parole leave on the grounds
mentioned in the application.

3.      Record indicates that application of parole leave has
been rejected as there is negative opinion of the police
authority, jail conduct is not good, the offence is serious in
nature, there is jail punishment, there are other members in
the family who can provide financial assistance and there is
apprehension of breach of peace and jumping the parole.

4.      It is settled law that the grant of parole is not a right
vested with the prisoner and is rather a privilege available to
the     prisoner          on   fulfilling      certain    conditions.     This     is   a


                                            Page 1 of 2
     R/SCR.A/7680/2026                                                    ORDER DATED: 05/06/2026




discretionary power which has to be exercised by the
authorities conferred with such powers under the provisions of
the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959.

5.      Having          regard         to     the      grounds           mentioned             in     the
application for parole, jail remarks and reason for rejecting
parole leave by the authority, this Court does not find any
infirmity with the order passed by the authority while rejecting
the claim of the prisoner for grant of parole. Consequently, the
application deserves to be dismissed and same is accordingly
dismissed.


                                                                                (ILESH J. VORA,J)
TAUSIF SAIYED


Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: TAUSIFAHMED SAIYED(HC01401), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 05/06/2026 10:49:40




                                               Page 2 of 2


Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "parole"Sign in to search

For a digitally signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's own website. Only the court can issue one.