Rajasthan High Court
Prahlad Singh S/O Shri Suva Lal vs State Of Rajasthan on 2 December, 2021
Bench: Prakash Gupta, Uma Shanker Vyas
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1471/2021
Prahlad Singh S/o Shri Suva Lal, Aged About 52 Years, R/o
Chawandiya, Police Station Pushkar Dist. Ajmer Raj. (At Present
Serving his sentence in Central Jail Jaipur) Through His Son
Rajesh Singh S/o Prahlad Singh, Aged About 20 Years, R/o
Chawandiya Police Station, Pushkar Dist. Ajmer Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Home
Secretariat Jaipur
2. The Deputy Secretary Department Of Home (Group-12),
Govt. Of Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat Jaipur
3. The Prisoners Parole Advisory Committee (State
Committee), Through Its Chairman Director General Of
Prisons Raj.
4. The Dist. Magistrate, Ajmer
5. Superintendent, Central Jail Jaipur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishram Prajapati, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Rekha Madnani, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS
Order
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.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide
judgment dated 10.4.2008 passed by the trial court in Sessions
case No. 62/2007, the petitioner was convicted for the offence
(2 of 3) [CRLW-1471/2021]
under Section 302 and 323 IPC and sentenced to undergo life
imprisonment. The petitioner filed a D.B. Cr. Appeal No. 750/2008
before this Court, but the same was dismissed. He further submits
that the petitioner has remained in custody for more than 15
years (including remission).
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. The meeting of the State Level Parole
Committee was convened on 15.7.2021, in which the case of the
petitioner was considered, but the same was rejected vide order
dated 6.8.2021 on the ground that he jumped from roll call for
one day while he was in Open Air Camp.
He further submits that the petitioner has availed three
emergent paroles and six regular paroles but did not misuse the
liberty granted to him. The jail conduct of the petitioner is
satisfactory, hence he should be granted permanent parole.
On the other hand, learned PP appearing for the State
submits that the petitioner was sent in Open Air Camp. The
petitioner jumped from the Roll call meeting dated 8.10.2019, for
which FIR No. 1597/2019 was registered against him for the
offence under Section 224 IPC at Police Station, Sanganer, Jaipur,
in which he was arrested on 9.10.2019 and sent to jail. Hence, he
was denied permanent parole.
Heard. Considered.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner has already been
granted benefit of regular paroles and emergent paroles, 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
(3 of 3) [CRLW-1471/2021]
more than 15 years of sentence with remission. Only for one day,
he jumped from roll call from Open Air Camp.
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 6.8.2021 qua petitioner, whereby
permanent parole was refused to him.
Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby
allowed and the impugned order dated 6.8.2021 qua petitioner
stands quashed and set-aside and the concerned Authority is
directed to release the convict petitioner on permanent parole
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 Sessions Case No. 62/2007 and at the same time, he
shall also maintain peace and tranquility during the parole period.
(UMA SHANKER VYAS),J (PRAKASH GUPTA),J
DK/58
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
