ROOP NARAYAN MEENA S/O HARNARAYAN MEENA vs STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR( — SCR.A/7576/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 14,21,226. Disposed: --28-REJECTED @ ADM.STAGE on 02nd June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: GJHC240395122026

Filing Number

SCR.A/22882/2026

Filing Date

27-May-2026

Registration No

SCR.A/7576/2026

Registration Date

01-Jun-2026

Judge

Honourable Mr. Justice Ilesh J. Vora

Coram

Honourable Mr. Justice Ilesh J. Vora

Bench Type

SINGLE

Category

625-SJ - SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION - UNDER ARTICLE 226 ( 625 )

Sub-Category

2320-SJ - SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION - UNDER ARTICLE 226 - SEEKING PAROLE - THROUGH ADVOCATE ( 2320 )

Judicial Branch

JUDICIAL

Decision Date

02-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

--28-REJECTED @ ADM.STAGE

Last updated 03-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 14,21,226
Penal Code, 1860 Section 420,120(B)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ROOP NARAYAN MEENA S/O HARNARAYAN MEENA

    Adv. MR. PARTH .B. CHAUHAN(

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(

  2. 2.JAIL SUPERINTENDENT

  3. 3.I. G. PRISON OFFICE

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 02-Jun-2026

    Honourable Mr. Justice R.m.chhaya,honourable Mr. Justice Ilesh J. VoraView PDF

    The Gujarat High Court dismissed Roop Narayan Meena's parole application, upholding the rejection by prison authorities. The court found no infirmity in the authority's decision, noting that parole is a discretionary privilege—not a right—and that valid grounds for rejection existed including poor jail conduct, serious offense nature, prior absconding, and breach of peace risk. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 02-Jun-2026

    3600-Fresh Matters

    Honourable Mr. Justice Ilesh J. Vora

  4. 27-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. SCR.A/7576/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Gujarat High Court dismissed Roop Narayan Meena's parole application, upholding the rejection by prison authorities. The court found no infirmity in the authority's decision, noting that parole is a discretionary privilege—not a right—and that valid grounds for rejection existed including poor jail conduct, serious offense nature, prior absconding, and breach of peace risk. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case