ARIF ISHAKBHAI DAGRA vs STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR( — SCR.A/7694/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: --28-REJECTED @ ADM.STAGE on 05th June 2026.

CNR: GJHC240403792026

CASE DISPOSED

e-Filing Number

01-06-2026

Filing Number

SCR.A/23486/2026

Filing Date

03-06-2026

Registration No

SCR.A/7694/2026

Registration Date

03-06-2026

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

2321-SJ - SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION - UNDER ARTICLE 226 - SEEKING PAROLE - THROUGH JAIL ( 2321 )

Judicial Branch

JUDICIAL

Decision Date

05th June 2026

Nature of Disposal

--28-REJECTED @ ADM.STAGE

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 125(3)

Petitioner(s)

ARIF ISHAKBHAI DAGRA

Adv. THROUGH JAIL(

Respondent(s)

STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(

JAIL SUPERINTENDENT

DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

Hearing History

Judge: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA

05-06-2026

3600-FRESH MATTERS

Orders

05-06-2026
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA

The Gujarat High Court dismissed Arif Ishakbhai Dagra's parole application challenging the competent authority's rejection of his plea for early release from a 3-year sentence. The court found no infirmity in the rejection order, noting that parole is a discretionary privilege (not a right) and the authority's concerns—including negative police opinion, availability of family financial support, and apprehension of breach of peace—were valid grounds for denial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The Gujarat High Court dismissed Arif Ishakbhai Dagra's parole application challenging the competent authority's rejection of his plea for early release from a 3-year sentence. The court found no infirmity in the rejection order, noting that parole is a discretionary privilege (not a right) and the authority's concerns—including negative police opinion, availability of family financial support, and apprehension of breach of peace—were valid grounds for denial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

Constitution of India Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 All acts →

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case