MANGAL MANJIBHAI VAGHELA vs STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR( — SCR.A/7686/2026

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

CNR: GJHC240404072026

CASE DISPOSED

e-Filing Number

01-06-2026

Filing Number

SCR.A/23510/2026

Filing Date

03-06-2026

Registration No

SCR.A/7686/2026

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
Penal Code, 1860 Section 354, 506(2)
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences(pocso) Act, 2012 Section 8, 12

Petitioner(s)

MANGAL MANJIBHAI VAGHELA

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

Case Summary: The Gujarat High Court dismissed Mangal Manjibhai Vaghela's parole application. The convict, serving a 5-year sentence, appealed the rejection of his parole by competent authorities. Justice Ilesh J. Vora upheld the rejection, noting that parole is a discretionary privilege—not a right—and found no infirmity in the authority's decision based on negative police opinion and apprehension of breach of peace and parole violation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: The Gujarat High Court dismissed Mangal Manjibhai Vaghela's parole application. The convict, serving a 5-year sentence, appealed the rejection of his parole by competent authorities. Justice Ilesh J. Vora upheld the rejection, noting that parole is a discretionary privilege—not a right—and found no infirmity in the authority's decision based on negative police opinion and apprehension of breach of peace and parole violation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

Constitution of India Penal Code, 1860 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences(pocso) Act, 2012 All acts →

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case