HC orders IG Prison for  affidavit on his mechanical rejection of paroles

0
82

Panaji: The Bombay High Court at Goa on Tuesday has asked state Inspector General of Prison Rajendra Mirajkar to file an affidavit before it within two weeks, prima facie holding him responsible for shirking his responsibility by mechanically rejecting the applications for parole and furlough by the Prisoners.

The division bench comprising Justice M S Sonak and Justice Nutan Sardesai issued the interim order in the petition filed before them by one Naguesh Gaonkar, who is serving sentence at Central Jail, Colvale in North Goa.

The order which was pronounced on August 27 reads that taking into consideration the manner in which Inspector General of Prison Rajendra Mirajkar has been mechanically rejecting the applications for parole and furlough, he is directed to file an affidavit before this court within two weeks.

The Inspector General of Prison has been asked to furnish details like date on which he has assumed the charge of the office, details of the applications for parole, furlough entertained by him from the date of assuming the charge and details of the parole, furlough granted by him and rejected by him during his tenure.

The bench has observed “ prima facie we find that the IGP is shriking the responsibility by virtually abdicating his discretion to the dictates of the Superintendent of police.”

“Again, we find that even the reports of the superintendent of police are issued in mechanical manner, which again, are prima facie indicating of shirking responsibility,” the order reads.

The bench observed that the circumstances that the prisoners have been released in past on several occasions on parole or furlough and they have neither absconded nor breached any of the terms of condition of parole or furlough are completely ignored and applications are routinely rejected on the alleged basis that there is possibility of absconding.

“As a result, each week, we find that several petitions are instituted by such of the prisoners, who are not in a position to engage an advocate and question such rejection orders,” the Judges noted.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here