RASIKBHAI BABUBHAI VAGHARI vs State of Gujarat Advocate - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR( — SCR.A/7695/2026
Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: --28-REJECTED @ ADM.STAGE on 05th June 2026.
CNR: GJHC240404342026
e-Filing Number
01-06-2026
Filing Number
SCR.A/23531/2026
Filing Date
03-Jun-2026
Registration No
SCR.A/7695/2026
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.RASIKBHAI BABUBHAI VAGHARI
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 Rasikbhai Babubhai Vaghari's parole application. The applicant, serving a 3-year sentence, challenged the competent authority's rejection of his parole plea. The court upheld the rejection, finding no infirmity in the authority's decision, which was based on the availability of family financial support and apprehensions regarding breach of peace and absconding. The court affirmed that parole is a discretionary privilege, not a right, governed by the Prisons 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/7695/2026
Case Summary: The Gujarat High Court dismissed Rasikbhai Babubhai Vaghari's parole application. The applicant, serving a 3-year sentence, challenged the competent authority's rejection of his parole plea. The court upheld the rejection, finding no infirmity in the authority's decision, which was based on the availability of family financial support and apprehensions regarding breach of peace and absconding. The court affirmed that parole is a discretionary privilege, not a right, governed by the Prisons Rules, 1959. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts