1.List has been revised thrice. None appeared for the petitioner. Papers have been examined and Shri M.A.Bukhari has been heard.
2.Two reliefs have been claimed in this petition. First is that the petitioner be enlarged on Parole for a period of 30 days and the second is that the petitioner be released on first furlough leave. These two prayers are self contradictory. In the body of the petition there is no mention that the I.G. (Prison) was moved for furlough leave which was rejected nor any such order of rejection has been filed. Consequently straight-away in this petition prayer for furlough leave cannot be accepted nor granted.
3.So far as prayer for 30 days parole is concerned no good ground is found for accepting the same. It is said that the wife of the petitioner is suffering from abdominal pain due to swelling in Uterus region and the doctor has advised operation within 15 days. Zerox copy of the medical certificate dated 17.4.2000 shows that it is a Certificate obtained with a purpose to seek parole. Otherwise no medical Officer could have certified that presence of the petitioner for such operation is absolutely necessary to look after her. In Para : 4 of the petition it is disclosed that the petitioner's son, namely, Hardipsingh Gil moved an application for parole to the District Magistrate, Vadodara on 17.4.2000 which was rejected on 16.5.2000. It is not said that the said son of the petitioner is minor. Consequently there is family member, namely, son of the petitioner who can look after the operation.
4.Further, the medical certificate shows that operation of Uterus was to be performed within 15 days of 17.4.2000. This application on the other hand was moved on 20.6.2000. Latest position has not been disclosed in the petition. Consequently the so called operation of the Uterus does not seem to be pressing ground at this stage on which the prayer of the petitioner for grant of parole can be accepted. It may also be mentioned that the District Magistrate, Vadodara, rejected the petitioner's parole application on 17.4.2000. At that time this ground was not raised. Medical Certificate was obtained on that very day i.e. on 17.4.2000 only with a purpose to create evidence for acceptance of petitioner's request.
5.For the reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in this petition nor the order of District Magistrate requires to be interfered with. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
sd/-
Date : September 13, 2000( D. C. Srivastava, J. ) *sas*