Rajasthan High Court
Hansraj S/O Shri Sanwalram vs State Of Rajasthan on 18 February, 2021
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 800/2020
Hansraj S/o Shri Sanwalram, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Khal Ka
Dhaba, Tan-Pipalda, Police Station Bonli, District Sawai
Madhopur (Raj) (At Present In Special Central Jail Shalyawas
Dausa) Through His Cousin Brother Rajesh Kumar Meena S/o
Shri Munshiram Aged About 34 Years R/o Meena Mohalla,
Ramgarh, Police Station And Tehsil Mahwa, District Dausa (Raj)
321608
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Home,
Secretariat Jaipur (Raj)
2. The Deputy Secretary, Department Of Home (Group -12),
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur
3. The Prisons Parole Advisory Committee (State
Committee), Through Its Chairman, Director General Of
Prisons, Rajasthan
4. Superintendent Special Central Jail, Shalyawas Dausa
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishram Prajapati
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mangal Singh Saini, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
18/02/2021
This parole petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India with the prayer that the order dated
22.09.2020 issued pursuant to the meeting of Permanent Parole
Committee dated 11.08.2020 whereby the petitioner has been
denied permanent parole on the ground of non availing of three
regular paroles, be quashed.
(2 of 4) [CRLW-800/2020]
It has been submitted in the petition that vide judgment
dated 28.02.2015 passed by the trial Court, the petitioner was
convicted for the offence under Section 302/149, 147 & 323/149.
However, in appeal vide judgment of Division Bench of this Court
dated 06.09.2019, while modifying conviction under Section 302
IPC into Section 304 Part II/149 of IPC, sentenced the petitioner
to 8 years imprisonment with fine.
It has further been submitted that the petitioner had served
7 years and 18 days of imprisonment including remission upto
16.11.2020 out of the total sentence of 8 years. In this way, he
has served a substantive part of his sentence. He was released on
two paroles of 20 and 30 days respectively 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.
In the reply, it is submitted that the case of the petitioner
was placed before State Level Parole Advisory Committee but the
same has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not
availed three regular paroles, although there is no specific period
of sentence for eligibility of permanent parole. It has further been
submitted that after availing three regular paroles, his case will be
considered for permanent parole.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused
the record.
(3 of 4) [CRLW-800/2020]
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
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 two regular paroles of 20 and 30 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
22.09.2020 qua petitioner, whereby permanent parole was refused
to him.
(4 of 4) [CRLW-800/2020]
Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed
and the impugned order dated 22.09.2020 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
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/35
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
