1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 70 OF 2008 Shri Ramesh Chander Singh Convict No.797, Presently serving, Sentence at Central Jail Aguada, Sinquerim - Goa .... Appellant/ Petitioner Versus 1) State of Goa (through under secretary Home department) Also- Porvorim. 2) The Inspector General of Prison Collectorate building, North Goa Panaji. 3) The Superintendent, Central Jail Aguada, Goa ..... Respondents. Ms. Asha Dessai, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms. W. Coutinho, Public Prosecutor for the respondents. Coram :- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date : - 01 st December, 2008 . ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mrs. Dessai,learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Coutinho, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 2. Rule. By consent, heard forthwith. 2 3. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 11.06.2008 passed by the respondent No.2 rejecting parole to the petitioner. 4. The petitioner filed an application seeking parole on the ground of serious illness of his wife and also on the ground that his son Nagendra had met with an accident. After obtaining report from Jhajhar Police Station in Haryana State, the respondent No.2 passed the impugned order rejecting the application on the ground that though Nagendra had met with an accident and wife Murtidevi was suffering from illness, the elder son of the petitioner, was capable of looking after both of them. It has been further stated that there is every possibility that if prisoner is released on parole, he will not surrender to jail and he is likely to abscond. 5. Mrs. Dessai, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the reasons given by the respondent No.2 for rejecting parole, are patently unsustainable in law. She further submitted that the grounds given by the petitioner seeking parole, have not been considered by the respondent No.2 while rejecting the request for parole. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 3 6. Per contra, Ms. Coutinho, learned Public Prosecutor supported that the impugned order. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the record. The impugned order discloses that the respondent No.2 has passed the order mainly on the ground that son of the petitioner, is capable of looking after the wife and son of the petitioner and also, on the ground that in the event of petitioner is released on parole, he will not surrender to jail and is likely to abscond. 8. Rule 324 of Goa Prisons Rules, 2006 which deals with the grant of parole, reads thus : “ 324. When parole to be granted – Parole may be granted to a prisoner in the event of emergent situations like death or serious illness of father, mother, brother, sister, spouse and children and also marriage of brother, sister and children or for any other sufficient cause.” 9. From bare reading of the said provision, it is clear that when an application seeking parole is filed on the ground of serious illness of nearest relative, the same may be granted. Therefore, before considering the parole application on merits, the authority dealing with 4 the application, is expected to verify whether the reasons given by the prisoner seeking parole, are genuine or not. In the present case, perusal of the impugned order discloses that the respondent has not taken into consideration the genuineness of the reasons given by the petitioner seeking parole. Under Rule 324 of Goa Prisons Rules, 2006, it is only in case of serious illness of nearest relatives that the prisoner can be granted parole. Since the respondent No.2 has not considered this aspect of the matter in the impugned order, the impugned order is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 11.06.2008 is set aside. 10. The respondent No.2 shall pass afresh order after verifying whether the reasons given by the petitioner seeking parole, are genuine or not and for the said purpose, the respondent No.2 may call for the report from the concerned police station and shall pass an appropriate order within a period of six week from today. 11. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. A. P. LAVANDE,J. SMA