ARIF ISHAKBHAI DAGRA vs STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR( — SCR.A/7696/2026
Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: --28-REJECTED @ ADM.STAGE on 05th June 2026.
CNR: GJHC240403942026
e-Filing Number
01-06-2026
Filing Number
SCR.A/23500/2026
Filing Date
03-Jun-2026
Registration No
SCR.A/7696/2026
Registration Date
03-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
2321-SJ - SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION - UNDER ARTICLE 226 - SEEKING PAROLE - THROUGH JAIL ( 2321 )
Judicial Branch
JUDICIAL
Decision Date
05-Jun-2026
Nature of Disposal
--28-REJECTED @ ADM.STAGE
Last updated 06-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.ARIF ISHAKBHAI DAGRA
Adv. THROUGH JAIL(
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(
-
2.JAIL SUPERINTENDENT
-
3.DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
05-Jun-2026
Honourable Mr. Justice R.m.chhaya,honourable Mr. Justice Ilesh J. VoraView PDF
Case Summary: The Gujarat High Court dismissed Arif Ishakbhai Dagra's parole application on 05/06/2026. The court upheld the rejection by competent authorities, finding no infirmity in their decision based on grounds that family members could provide financial assistance, apprehension of breach of peace and parole violation, and non-compliance with parole guidelines. The court reaffirmed that parole is a discretionary privilege rather than a right, exercisable under the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
05-Jun-2026
3600-Fresh Matters
Honourable Mr. Justice Ilesh J. Vora
-
03-Jun-2026
Case filed
Registration No. SCR.A/7696/2026
Case Summary: The Gujarat High Court dismissed Arif Ishakbhai Dagra's parole application on 05/06/2026. The court upheld the rejection by competent authorities, finding no infirmity in their decision based on grounds that family members could provide financial assistance, apprehension of breach of peace and parole violation, and non-compliance with parole guidelines. The court reaffirmed that parole is a discretionary privilege rather than a right, exercisable under the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts