9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 635X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e for a period of two months is rejected and to quash the report of the second respondent bearing No. Hennuru/PS/CC/B2/2022 dated 22.02.2022 (Annexure-F). 2. Heard learned counsel Sri.K.Sreedhar for petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.Vinod Kumar for respondents. Perused the writ petition papers. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.K.Sreedhar submits that the petitioner is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act by this Court in Crl.Appeal.Nos.18/2011, 19/2011, 20/2011 and 21/2011 setting aside the judgment of acquittal dated 03.11.2010 in C.C.No.1761/2009, C.C.No.1763/2009, C.C.No.5682/2008 and C.C.No.8513/2008 on the file of 12th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted for minor offence is entitled for consideration of his application for parole leniently. The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of the observation of this Court that Rule 191 of 1974 Rules is not invocable against the petitioner, the respondents again rejected the request of the petitioner based on the Police report dated 22.02.2022 at Annexure-F. It is submitted that the second respondent submitted a report stating that if the petitioner is released on parole, there is chance of petitioner involving in other fraudulent offenses and he may threaten the witnesses who had deposed against him. It is submitted that in the criminal case against the petitioner, only the complainant was examined and no other witnesses were examined. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le Instruments Act, are ordinarily treated as minor offences in criminal jurisprudence. Therefore, Rule 191 of 1974 Rules is not invocable, since the provisions of the said Rule encompass only very serious offences. This apart, no material is produced to show that the petitioner is classified as "habitual criminal" in terms of the said Rule. 6. Apparently, the convicts undergoing sentence for minor criminal offences are entitled to have their request for parole or furlough leniently considered, more particularly, during the special circumstances like Covid Pandemic. The reliance of the learned Additional Government Advocate on the decision of Rashi Kumara's case supra would not come to his rescue, since the litigant in the said case was c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner is not declared as an habitual criminal, the apprehension of the respondents that the petitioner may repeat the offence is also has no basis. Thus, for the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the application of the petitioner for parole needs to be reconsidered by the respondent-authorities. Hence, the following order: (a) The writ petition is allowed. (b) The endorsement bearing No No.BCP/J3/541/2020-21 dated 05.03.2022 (Annexure-E) and the Police report bearing No. Hennuru/PS/CC/B2/2022 dated 22.02.2022 (Annexure-F) are quashed. (c) The first respondent-Jail Superintendent is directed to consider petitioner's application for parole afresh, without reference to Rule 191 (1) (g) of Prison Rules 1974, within a p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
