Rajasthan High Court
Nand Kishore @ Guruji S/O Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 February, 2021
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 101/2021
Nand Kishore @ Guruji S/o Shri Rajaram Meena, Aged About 33
Years, R/o Meena Seemla Ps Mehendipur Balaji Tehsil Sikrai Dist.
Dausa Raj. (At Present In Special Central Jail Shalyawas Dausa)
Through His Cousin Brother Devi Ram Meena S/o Shri Kedar
Meena Aged About 27 Years R/o Meena Seemla Ps Mehendipur
Balaji Tehsil Sikrai Dist. Dausa Raj. 303509
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Home
Secretariat Jaipur
2. The Deputy Secretary, Department Of Home (Group-12)
Government Of Raj. Government Secretariat Jaipur
3. The Prisoners Parole Advisory Committee (State
Committee), Through Its Chairman Director General Of
Prisons Raj.
4. Superintendent, Special Central Jail Shalyawas Dausa
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishram Prajapati
For Respondent(s) : Mr. F.R. Meena, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
17/02/2021
This parole petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India with the prayer that the order dated
11.01.2021 issued pursuant to the meeting of Permanent Parole
Committee dated 04.12.2020 whereby the petitioner has been
denied permanent parole on the ground of non availing of three
regular paroles, be quashed.
(2 of 4) [CRLW-101/2021]
It has been submitted in the petition that the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Bandikui, District Dausa vide its
judgment dated 18.12.2015 convicted the petitioner for the
offence under Sections 302/34 & 342 of IPC and sentenced to
maximum life imprisonment. The petitioner filed DB Criminal
Appeal No.174/2016 which was partly allowed by this Court and
the sentence was reduced to 10 years.
It has further been submitted that the petitioner had served
8 years 6 months and 14 days of imprisonment (including
remission) upto 25.01.2021 out of the total sentence of 10 years.
In this way, he has served a substantive part of his sentence.
Referring the reply filed by the respondents, learned counsel
submitted that respondents have admitted therein that the
petitioner has already availed three regular paroles of 20, 30 & 40
days respectively granted by the Parole Committee. He never
misused the liberty of parole and on completion of the parole
period, he surrendered before the concerned authority on due
date. During incarceration, the conduct of the petitioner has
remained absolutely good and he is continuously getting remission
in jail on the basis of his good conduct and behavior. Thus, he is
entitled to be released on permanent parole.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused
the record.
Issue raised, in the instant case, is no longer res-integra.
In the case of Suresh & Others Vs. State of Rajasthan,
reported in 2011 (3) WLC 643, Division Bench of this Court had
held that on the technical ground that the petitioner has not
availed three permanent paroles is not a good ground to deny the
parole until some adverse material is brought on record that if the
(3 of 4) [CRLW-101/2021]
petitioner is released on parole, the same will cause disturbance in
the society.
In the case of Suraj Giri Vs. State of Rajasthan & others,
reported in 2011 Criminal Law Journal-1534, it has been
observed by the Court that non-availing of three or any of paroles
by the prisoner itself is not a sound ground for refusal of
permanent parole.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner has already been
granted benefit of three regular paroles of 20, 30 & 40 days
respectively and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him and
his conduct and behaviour during the period of previous regular
parole was good.
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 in
view of the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court, cited
herein above, I deem it just and proper to allow the present
petition for parole and set aside the impugned order dated
11.01.2021 qua petitioner, whereby permanent parole was refused
to him.
Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed
and the impugned order dated 11.01.2021 qua petitioner stands
quashed and set aside and the concerned District Authority is
directed to release the convict-petitioner on permanent parole,
subject to furnishing his personal bond in the sum of Rs.
1,00,000/- before the concerned District Magistrate. The petitioner
is also directed to furnish two sureties of Rs. 50,000/-each within
(4 of 4) [CRLW-101/2021]
two weeks to the satisfaction of the concerned District Magistrate
with the stipulation that in case during permanent parole, 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.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Manish/53
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
