Roshan vs State
2021 Latest Caselaw 12191 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 98/2021

Roshan S/o Shri Manohar Bendre, Aged About 30 Years, Gourchan Choli, Tehsil Mavki, District Bidar (Karnataka) At Present R/o 10/b, Behind Of Tulsi Kirana Store, Siyol Nagar Society, Naya Bhatta, University Road, Police Station Khatodra, District Surat (Gujarat). (At Present In Central Jail Jaipur).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State, through the Secretary Home, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Deputy Secretary, Department Of Home (Group-12), Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. The Prisoners Parole Advisory Committee (State Committee), Through Its Chairman, Director, General Of Prisons, Rajasthan.

4. Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur.

                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :    Mr. Bharat Devasi
For Respondent(s)         :    Mr. Farzand Ali, GA-cum-AAG with
                               Mr. Abhishek Purohit



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

                                Judgment

04/08/2021

The convict-petitioner has approached this Court by way of

this writ petition seeking to assail the impugned order dated

11.01.2021 whereby, the application seeking permanent parole

filed by the convict-petitioner was rejected.

As per the reply of the respondents, the convict-petitioner

has suffered imprisonment in excess of 17 years including the

(2 of 4) [CRLW-98/2021]

remission as on date. He has satisfactorily availed regular paroles

of 20 and 30 days in the years 2014 & 2018 respectively.

Considering his good conduct, the convict-petitioner was sent to

the Open Air Camp, Sanganer. While he was serving life

imprisonment at the Open Air Camp, Sanganer, the convict-

petitioner was found in an inebriated condition on 14.07.2019 on

which, he was arrested under Sections 151 and 107 Cr.P.C. A

complaint was filed against the petitioner in the Court of Assistant

Commissioner of Police (Sanganer), District Jaipur (East) for the

above infringement and on 15.07.2019, it was ordered that the

petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing bail and bonds.

However, the convict-petitioner appears to be lacking means to

furnish surety bond of Rs.10,000/- and thus, he was not released.

Ultimately, the learned Executive Magistrate released the convict-

petitioner on his personal bond by taking recourse to Section 123

Cr.P.C. Thus, the convict petitioner remained in custody in

connection with the said violation for a period of four months.

The State Government has rejected the application for

permanent parole filed on behalf of the convict-petitioner for the

precise reason that while serving life imprisonment at the Open

Air Camp, Sanganer, the convict-petitioner was found in an

inebriated condition and was sent to custody under Sections 151,

107 and 116 (3) Cr.P.C. Admittedly, the tenure of those

proceedings was of one year only and thus they have

automatically terminated.

A perusal of the adverse recommendations indicates that the

registration of the proceedings under Section 151, 107 and 116(3)

(3 of 4) [CRLW-98/2021]

Cr.P.C. was the only reason assigned for not releasing the convict-

petitioner on parole. However, as the tenure of those proceedings

has come to an end automatically on 15.07.2020. The convict-

petitioner suffered an additional imprisonment of four months in

those proceedings on account of being unable to furnish the surety

bond.

On a perusal of the reply of the respondents, it is apparent

that the entitlement of the convict-petitioner to avail the

indulgence of permanent parole after having satisfactorily served

the requisite period of punishment was not disputed except for the

above infringement. As per Section 107 Cr.P.C., the maximum

period for which a person against whom there is a complaint of

breach of peace etc., can be bound down with or without a bond is

one year. Manifestly, the said period of one year came to an end

long back i.e, in July, 2020. In this background, we are of the

opinion that the convict-petitioner does not suffer from any

handicap which can deny him the indulgence of permanent parole.

Shri Devasi, learned counsel representing the petitioner

pointed out that the convict's family condition is very poor and he

does not have means to furnish surety bonds.

In view of the facts noted above, we hereby accept this writ

petition, set aside the impugned order dated 11.01.2021 and

direct that the convict-petitioner Roshan S/o Shri Manohar shall be

released on permanent parole provided he furnishes a personal

bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- to the satisfaction of the

Superintendent, Jail concerned. He shall also furnish an

(4 of 4) [CRLW-98/2021]

undertaking to the effect that he shall mark his presence at the

Police Station Dungarpur Sadar once every six months during the

period of parole. The convict-petitioner shall also provide his

Aadhar Card Number (if available), mobile number and the

permanent address with the undertaking.

The writ petition is allowed in these terms.

                                   (MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J                                    (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
                                    67-Sudhir Asopa/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)