I.A.(Crl.)/1359/2025 of SORHAB ALI Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 9 March 2026

ORDER

Date : 10/03/2026 (Michael Zothankhuma, J)

1. Heard Mr. A.K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant and Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned APP, appearing for the State.

2. This is an application for grant of Parole for the purpose of performing the rituals connected with the passing away of the mother of the applicant on 22/11/2025. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been convicted under section 326/307 IPC vide impugned judgement dated 27/09/2024 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhubri, in Sessions Case No. 159/2016, arising out of Dhubri PS Case No. 1127/2013. The appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with a fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for 3 months under section 326 IPC. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 8 years with a fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for 3 months under section 307 IPC.

3. The applicant’s counsel submits that due to the death of his mother, he had to conduct the rituals of Fatiha and Challiswa on the 40th day of the death of his mother. However, due to the fact that the application had been first listed before the learned Single Judge and subsequently had to be transferred to this Court, the applicant could not conduct the rituals in time. He submits that the said rituals are to be conducted by the applicant, as his child, who is a minor living with his wife, cannot do it. He accordingly prays that around 40 days parole may be granted for conducting the rituals. Thereafter, he will return back to jail as per the directions passed by this Court.

4. Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned APP, Assam, submits that the rituals that is stated to be required to be done by the applicant, can be done by any relative, inasmuch as, the same is not a mandatory religious ritual. The same is only a social obligation which can be done by any relative of the applicant. He accordingly submits that the application should be rejected.

5. We have considered the provisions of section 67 of the Assam Prisons Act, 2013 and the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Asfaq Vs. State of Rajasthan and others reported in (2017) 15 SCC 55, wherein the difference between parole and furlough has been explained. Both are in relation to conditional release, which can be granted for short term imprisonment and long term imprisonment respectively.

6. On considering the fact that the applicant is required to undertake some rituals due to the death of his mother in November, 2025, we hereby allow the applicant’s prayer for parole for a period of 12 (twelve) days, with effect from

11/03/2026 till the evening of 23/03/2026, whereafter, he will surrender back to the Jail Authorities. Accordingly, the parole from 11/03/2026 till 23/03/2026 is granted, subject to the following conditions :-

(i) The applicant shall furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand), with 1(one) surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent.

(ii) He shall reside only in the address mentioned in the memo of parties and shall not leave the jurisdiction of the concerned Police Station without prior intimation in writing and approval.

(iii) The applicant, shall on his release, immediately report before the Officer-in-Charge of the Dhubri Police Station.

(iv) He shall submit his mobile number as well as the mobile number of his wife for further communication, if required.

(v) The applicant shall surrender before the Jail Authorities on or before 23/03/2026 at 4:00 p.m.

(vi) In the event of breach of any of the above conditions, the same shall entail cancellation of the parole granted, forthwith.

7. IA is accordingly disposed of.

JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant