- (1.) THE mother of the prisoner Mahaveer son of Lal Chand has sent this letter petition with the submissions that his prisoner son is serving out the sentence for last more than 10 years; and that he had earlier availed of 20 days and 30 days regular paroles as also an emergent parole of 20 days without any cause of complaint.
(2.) THE grievance stated in the petition is that the son of the petitioner moved an application to the Jail Superintendent for being released on regular 40 days' parole but the authorities declined to consider his application for the reason of alleged pendency of his appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioner has averred that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in fact, dismissed the appeal filed on behalf of his son and no such appeal was pending. The petitioner has, therefore, prayed for consideration of the case of her son for The respondents in their reply have admitted the fact that the matter was no longer pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court now. The respondents have clearly averred that Special Leave Petition No. 19470/2011 against the judgment and order of this Court was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the order dated 10.10.2011. The respondents have also pointed out that as on 15.03.2013, the period of serving by the petitioner's son had been about 12 years 2 months and 25 days, inclusive of remissions. It is also not in dispute that the son of the petitoner earlier availed two paroles. One, from 13.04.2009 to 02.05.2009 and second, from 16.02.2012 to 16.03.2012. The respondents further submit that the petitioner has directly approached this Court for grant of parole without first approaching the jail authorities. However, it is an admitted position that the conduct of the petitioner in the Jail is found to be satisfactory.
(3.) THUS , the only point remaining in the matter with reference to the reply submissions is that according to the respondents, prayer for parole was not made to the jail authorities whereas, according to the petitioner, such an application was not considered on the alleged ground of pendency of appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.;