Daya Singh Lahoriya S/O Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 7097 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

             D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 899/2021

Daya Singh Lahoriya S/o Shri Kripal Singh, Aged About 58 Years,
R/o Kasba Bharal, Police Station Maler Kotla (Now Police Station
Sandhaur) Dist. Sangrur Punjab (Presently Serving His Sentence
in Jail No. 08 and 09 Tihar New Delhi) Through His Wife
Kamaljeet Kaur W/o Shri Daya Singh Lahoriya Aged About 49
Years R/o Kasba Bharal Police Station Maler Kotla (Now Police
Station Sandhaur Dist. Sangrur (Punjab)
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.     The State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary, Home
       Secretariat, Jaipur
2.     The      Deputy      Secretary,        Government          of     Rajasthan,
       Department of Home (Group-12) Govt. Secretariat Jaipur
       (Raj.)
3.     The      Prisoners       Parole      Advisory         Committee        (State
       Committee), Through its Chairman, Director General Of
       Prison, Rajasthan.
4.     The Dist. Magistrate, Jaipur
5.     Superintendent, Central Jail Jaipur
6.     Superintendent, Tihar Jail No. 8 & 9 New Delhi
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anshuman Saxena, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Rekha Madnani, PP for the State

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS Judgment

02/12/2021

This parole petition has been filed under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India with the prayer to release the petitioner

on permanent parole.

(2 of 5) [CRLW-899/2021]

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide

judgment dated 20.10.2004 passed by the trial court in Sessions

case No. 26/2003, the petitioner was convicted for the offences

under Section 364-A, 365, 343 & 346 readwith Section 120-B of

IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The petitioner

filed D.B. Cr. Appeal No. 11/2005 before this Court, but the same

was dismissed vide judgment dated 20.3.2006. Thereafter the

petitioner filed SLP before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the same

was also dismissed vide judgment dated 14.5.2007. He further

submits that while convicting the petitioner, the trial court put a

rider not to release the petitioner before completing 20 years. By

now, the petitioner has served more than 24 years of sentence

without remission and including remission, he has served more

than 27 years of sentence.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that

being eligible under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on

Parole) Rules, 1958 (for short, 'the Rules of 1958'), the petitioner

applied for parole and accordingly, application of the petitioner

was forwarded by Jail Authorities at Tihar, New Delhi to the

Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur and District Magistrate, Jaipur

in July, 2020, but since the petitioner's case was not being

considered, he filed D.B. Cr. Writ Petition (Parole) No. 118/2021

and this Court vide its order dated 19.1.2021 directed the Parole

Committee to decide the permanent parole application of the

petitioner expeditiously but not later than three weeks from the

date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

Learned counsel further submits that the criteria of

availing of three paroles provided for permanent parole under

Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958 is not applicable in the petitioner's

(3 of 5) [CRLW-899/2021]

case because the petitioner's conviction is under Section 364 A

IPC and he has already sentenced more than the required

sentence. He further submits that the petitioner's case for

releasing him on permanent parole was considered by the State

Committee in its meeting dated 10.3.2021, but the Committee did

not recommend the petitioner's case and accordingly vide order

dated 8.4.2021, the petitioner's case has been rejected on the

ground that total 12 cases were registered against him, in which

he has been punished. He further submits that from a perusal of

the case details of the convict petitioner submitted by the

respondents alongwith their reply, it is evident that in 8 cases, he

has been acquitted. Even in 1 case, the petitioner is a

complainant, but that has also been included in the case details of

the petitioner.

He further submits that the petitioner was allowed the

first regular parole of 20 days by the Coordinate Bench of this

Court vide order dated 3.1.2020 passed in D.B. Cr. Writ Petition

(Parole) No. 792/2019. Subsequently he was granted special

parole by this Court vide order dated 29.9.2020 passed in D.B. Cr.

Writ Petition No. 533/2020, which was extended vide order dated

27.1.2020. Accordingly the petitioner availed the same from

18.11.2020 to 8.2.2021 and did not misuse the liberty granted to

him. He further submits that conduct of the petitioner is

satisfactory.

He further submits that co-accused Harnek Singh @

Surender Verma @ Inderjeet Singh has already been released on

permanent parole by this Court vide order dated 26.11.2021

passed in D.B. Cr. Writ Petition (Parole) No. 1392/2021. Therefore,

the petitioner should also be granted permanent parole.

                                          (4 of 5)                [CRLW-899/2021]



           Learned PP has opposed the same.

           Heard. Considered.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner has already been

granted benefit of first regular parole of 20 days and thereafter

special parole, which was subsequently extended, but he did not

misuse the liberty granted to him and his conduct is also

satisfactory. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has served

more than 24 years of sentence without remission and including

remission, he has served more than 27 years of sentence.

So far as 12 cases said to be pending against the

petitioner are concerned, it is evident from the case details that in

8 cases, he has been acquitted, but they been mentioned. Even in

1 case, the petitioner is a complainant, but that has also been

included in the list of cases.

Needless to say that in case the petitioner engages

himself in any untoward incident during permanent parole, same

can be withdrawn and the petitioner can be called upon to serve

his remaining sentence.

Having regard to the submissions made by the parties

and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the

case more particularly the period of sentence served by the

petitioner, his jail conduct, nothing adverse was found against him

during the period when he was granted paroles, we deem it just

and proper to allow the present petitioner for parole and set-aside

the impugned order dated 8.4.2021 qua petitioner, whereby

permanent parole was refused to him.

Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby

allowed and the impugned order dated 8.4.2021 qua petitioner

stands quashed and set-aside and the concerned Authority is

(5 of 5) [CRLW-899/2021]

directed to release the convict petitioner on permanent parole in

Sessions Case No. 26/2003 subject to his furnishing a personal

bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.

50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court with the

stipulation that in case during the permanent parole, the

petitioner commits any undesirable activity, he can be called upon

to serve his remaining sentence in the Sessions Case and at the

same time, he shall also maintain peace and tranquility during the

parole period.

                                   (UMA SHANKER VYAS),J                                           (PRAKASH GUPTA),J

                                   DK/47









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)