The Bombay High Court has granted parole to Vivek Shrivastav, allowing him to bid farewell to his son, who is heading to Australia for further studies. The court emphasized that if parole can be granted for sharing grief, it should also be permissible for joyful occasions.

A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande noted that conditional release is intended to help convicts maintain connections with the outside world and manage family affairs. The bench highlighted the humanistic approach embedded in the provisions of parole and furlough, which aim to ensure inmates remain integral parts of their families.

The court was hearing Shrivastav's petition, which sought parole to arrange his son's tuition fees and other expenses for his education in Australia. The prosecution opposed the plea, arguing that parole is typically reserved for emergencies, but the court rejected this reasoning.

"Grief is an emotion, so is happiness, and if parole can be granted to share grief, why not to share a happy occasion or moment," the high court stated. It questioned why parole granted for celebrating a marriage could not similarly apply to Shrivastav's situation.

Consequently, the court granted Shrivastav a ten-day parole. Convicted in a 2012 murder case and serving a life sentence since 2018, Shrivastav had filed an appeal against his conviction in 2019. His plea detailed that his son needed ₹36 lakh for tuition fees, along with travel and accommodation expenses for his studies in Australia. The court reaffirmed that the objective of parole and furlough rules is to help convicts maintain continuity with their family life and address family matters.

"...and also to save him from the evil effects of continuous prison life and maintain his mental balance by creating active interest in life and to enable him to remain hopeful for the future," HC said.

"The core of the benefits made available under the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, is to repose the faith of a convict in the system," the court said.

"We miserably fail to understand why the benefit of parole should be denied to the petitioner on a happy occasion like this, where the petitioner is seeking temporary relief so that he can arrange for financial resources and bid farewell to his son, who has secured an admission in a prestigious university in Australia," HC said.

It added that a huge amount has to be arranged for the petitioner's son to go to Australia.

"Unless and until the father is available to arrange for this amount, his young son may lose a chance and the offer which he has received," the court said.