Arun Kumar Jain S/O Shri Om Prakash ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 1545 Raj/2

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                     BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 747/2020

Arun Kumar Jain S/o Shri Om Prakash Jain, R/o Mahi Darwaja,
P.S.- Kotwali Distt.- Nagaur, Rajasthan. At Present Confined in
Central Jail Jodhpur, Jodhpur, Rajasthan. Through His Mother:
Lila Devi W/o Om Prakash Jain, R/o Mahi Darwaja, Police Station
Kotwali, District Nagaur, Rajasthan- 341001.
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.       State of Rajasthan, Through Secretary (Home), Govt. of
         Rajasthan.
2.       The Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur.
3.       District Collector, Nagaur.
                                                                  ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Nishant Vyas
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. F.R. Meena, P.P.



      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

                                      Order

11/02/2021

This criminal writ petition (parole) is filed for setting aside

the order dated 01.10.2020 passed by the District Parole Commit-

tee, Nagaur whereby, the application of the petition for grant of

first regular parole has been dismissed.

The facts as emerging from the record are that petitioner

was convicted and sentenced by the learned Sessions Court,

Jaipur in Sessions Case No.01/2012 vide judgment dated

06.12.2017 under Section(s) 13, 18, 18-B and 20 of the Unlawful

Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for brevity 'the Act of 1967') and

was sentenced to simple life imprisonment. In appeal, this Court

vide judgment dated 30.10.2018, set aside the conviction of the

(2 of 3) [CRLW-747/2020]

appellant under Section 13 of the Act of 1967 and substituted the

sentence from life imprisonment to 14 years rigorous imprison-

ment with fine.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has

served more than 10 years, 7 months and 11 days as on

20.01.2021 including remission and thus acquired eligibility for

grant of first regular parole under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prison-

ers Act, 1958; but, the respondents, vide order impugned dated

01.10.2020, rejected his case for grant of parole for extraneous

considerations. He submitted that as per the report of the Super-

intendent of Central Jail, Jodhpur, his jail conduct has remained

satisfactory. Drawing attention of this Court towards the report

dated 17.09.2020 furnished by the Department of Social Justice

and Welfare, Nagaur, he submitted that no objection for grant of

parole has been accorded therein. Relying on the judgment of this

Court in case of Pappu @ Salim Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.,

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16042/2017 dated 24.10.2017, he

prayed for setting aside the order impugned dated 01.10.2020

and for grant of first regular parole to him.

Although, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the

prayer; but, could not dispute that there is no statutory bar for

grant of parole on account of conviction of the petitioner under the

Act of 1967.

Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the

record.

Undisputedly, the petitioner has earned eligibility for grant of

first regular parole under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958. As per the

report of the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur, his jail

conduct has remained satisfactory and the Department of Social

(3 of 3) [CRLW-747/2020]

Justice and Welfare has also, vide its report dated 17.09.2020,

accorded no objection for grant of regular parole to him. The

purpose of parole is to facilitate family ties being maintained which

cannot be permitted to be frustrated by the respondents on flimsy

grounds.

Consequently, the order impugned dated 01.10.2020 is

quashed and set aside. This writ petition is allowed. The petitioner

shall be released on parole for 20 days on furnishing personal

bond in sum of Rs.1,000,00/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/-

each to the satisfaction of the concerned District Magistrate with

the stipulation that in case during parole of 20 days, the petitioner

commits any undesirable activity, he can be called upon to serve

his remaining sentence and at the same time he shall also

maintain peace and tranquility during the parole period and will

abide by any other condition imposed by the authority concerned.

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

DANISH USMANI /223

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)