9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 635X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner is classified as habitual criminal in terms of the said Rule - When this Court has specifically observed that Rule 191 of 1974 Rules is not invocable against the petitioner, the respondent-Police authorities could not have raised the same objections in the present writ petition also. There is no impediment to consider the petitioner s request for parole under Rule 191 of 1974 Rules. The Police report (Annexure-F) which is relied on by the respondent-Police authorities also cannot be a material to deny consideration of petitioner s application for parole. The apprehension of the respondents that the petitioner may threaten the witnesses who had deposed against the petitioner has no basis. Since the petitioner is not decl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... file of 12th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. It is submitted that, against the judgment of conviction, the petitioner filed SLP (Crl.) 2953 and 2956 of 2021 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 29.06.2021 directed to list the matter after four weeks to enable the petitioner to deposit 50% of the amount in question in the Registry of the Hon ble Apex Court. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner filed an application to the respondent-authorities for parole so as to arrange the amount for depositing before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The respondent-authorities failed to consider his application for grant of parole. This Court, by order dated 22.07.2021 in W. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the complainant was examined and no other witnesses were examined. Hence, the said contention that the petitioner may threaten the witnesses cannot be accepted. Therefore, he submits that the report itself is against the factuals and the question of petitioner threatening witnesses would not arise. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondents to consider his application for parole on its merit. 4. On the other hand, learned AGA would submit that the petitioner would not be entitled for parole, since the petitioner is convicted for more than three offences. The petitioner has suffered more than three convictions hence, in terms of Rule 191 of 1974 Rules the petitioner would not be entitled to parole. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase supra would not come to his rescue, since the litigant in the said case was convicted for the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC, which is not the case here. 6. This Court has categorically come to the conclusion that Rule 191 of 1974 Rules is not invocable against the petitioner, since it could be invoked when there is very serious offence. It also observed that the conviction of the petitioner is under the NI Act which are ordinarily treated as minor offences in criminal jurisprudence. It is also observed that there is no material to show that the petitioner is classified as habitual criminal in terms of the said Rule. At paragraph 6, this Court observed that the application of the petitioner needs lenient consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
