Created byFuzzy Cloud

High Court of Gujarat

HARSUKH MOHANBHAI DABHIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

Disposal
28-REJECTED @ ADM.STAGE

Holding

The court held that the authority's order rejecting parole was valid and the application was dismissed.

Summary

The applicant, sentenced to three years' imprisonment, filed a Special Criminal Application seeking parole leave after the competent authority rejected his request. The authority's refusal was based on apprehensions of breach of peace and the possibility of the prisoner absconding. The court noted that parole is a privilege, not a right, and is exercised at the discretion of the authority under the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. Upon reviewing the grounds cited by the applicant and the authority's reasons, the court found no infirmity in the authority's decision. Consequently, the application for parole was dismissed.

Issues considered

  • Whether the authority's rejection of parole on grounds of breach of peace and risk of absconding is legally valid
  • Whether the court can set aside the discretionary decision of the parole authority

Subjects

parolediscretionary powerprison lawbreach of peaceprivilegeCriminal Procedure

Judgment

      R/SCR.A/7684/2026                                        ORDER DATED: 05/06/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

     R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (PAROLE LEAVE) NO. 7684 of
                               2026

==========================================================
                               HARSUKH MOHANBHAI DABHI
                                         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 03
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 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
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.


                                             Page 1 of 2
       R/SCR.A/7684/2026                                                    ORDER DATED: 05/06/2026




 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 11:04:05




                                                 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.