Ramniwas S/O Sh. Dataram vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 7110 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

             D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 182/2021

Ramniwas S/o Sh. Dataram, R/o Village Maligav Police Station
Bagar Dist. Jhunjhunu Raj.
(At Present Confined In Central Jail Bikaner)
Through his Son In Law :- Naveen Kumar S/o Peetram Aged 33
Years R/o Village Dhadot Khurd P/s Singhana Dist. Jhunjhunu
Raj.
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.     State Of Rajasthan, Through Inspector General Prison
       Jaipur
2.     The Superintendent, Central Jail Bikaner
                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.R. Choudhary, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Rekha Madnani, PP

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.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide

judgment dated 20.9.2005 passed by the trial court in Sessions

case No. 29/2005 (69/2005), the petitioner was convicted for the

offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life

imprisonment. The petitioner filed a D.B. Cr. Appeal No. 906/2005

before this Court, but the same was dismissed vide judgment

dated 2.3.2015. He further submits that the petitioner is behind

(2 of 4) [CRLW-182/2021]

the bars since 20.9.2005 and thus, he has remained in custody

for more than 17 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 22.12.2020, in which the case of the

petitioner was considered, but the same was rejected vide order

dated 12.1.2021 on the ground that he jumped while he was on

emergent parole from 4.2.2011 to 10.2.2011.

He further submits that earlier the petitioner filed a

petition for permanent parole but looking to the facts and

circumstances of the case, the petitioner was allowed second

parole of thirty days instead of permanent parole by the

Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.5.2020 passed

in D.B. Cr. Writ Petition No. 141/2020. The petitioner availed the

second regular parole satisfactorily and did not misuse the liberty

granted to him. The jail conduct of the petitioner is satisfactory,

hence he should also be granted permanent parole.

On the other hand, learned PP appearing for the State

submits that during the emergent parole period from 4.2.2011 to

10.2.2011, the petitioner jumped from parole and did not

surrender in Jail on 10.2.2011, due to which FIR No. 70/2011 was

registered against him at Police Station, Kotwali, Jhunjhunu

wherein he was arrested and sent in Central Jail, Jaipur on

3.5.2011. Hence, he was denied permanent parole.

Heard. Considered.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner has already been

granted benefit of regular paroles, but he did not misuse the

(3 of 4) [CRLW-182/2021]

liberty granted to him and his conduct is also satisfactory. It is

also not in dispute that the petitioner has served more than 17

years of sentence with remission.

So far as petitioner's absconding during the emergent

parole period from 4.2.2011 to 10.2.2011 is concerned, taking

into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, he was

granted second regular parole by the Coordinate Bench of this

Court vide order dated 19.5.2020 passed in D.B. Cr. Writ Petition

No. 141/2020, which the petitioner availed satisfactorily and

nothing adverse was found against him.

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 12.1.2021 qua petitioner, whereby

permanent parole was refused to him.

Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby

allowed and the impugned order dated 12.1.2021 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

(4 of 4) [CRLW-182/2021]

during the permanent parole, the petitioner commits any

undesirable activity, he can be called upon to serve his remaining

sentence in Sessions Case No. 29/2005 (69/2005) and at the

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

parole period.

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

                                   DK/56









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)