Rajasthan High Court
Arvind Kumar S/O Shri Ganesh ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 23 February, 2021
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition (Parole) No. 604/2020
Arvind Kumar S/o Shri Ganesh Prasad, Aged About 35 Years, R/o
Narayanpur, Ps Chaubepur, Distt. Varanasi, U.P. At Present
Tenant Makaan No. 426, Kishan Bagh, Ps Shastri Nagar, Jaipur,
At Present In Special Central Jail, Shalyawas Dausa, Through His
Uncle Ashok Kumar S/o Late Shri Santlal, aged about 60 years
R/o Narayanpur, Ps Chaubepur, Distt. Varanasi, U.P.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Home,
Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The District Parole Advisory Committee, Through Its
Chairman, Distt. Magistrate, Dausa,
3. Superintendent Special Central Jail, Shalyawas Dausa
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishram Prajapati with
Mr. Piyush Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ramesh Choudhary, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
23/02/2021
This criminal writ petition (parole) is filed for setting aside
the order dated 24.08.2020 passed by the District Parole Advisory
Committee, Dausa whereby, the application of the petitioner 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 Additional Sessions
Judge (Women Atrocities Case No.1), Jaipur Metro (Raj.) in
Sessions Case No.123/2018 vide judgment dated 07.09.2019
(2 of 3) [CRLW-604/2020]
under Section(s) 376 & 366 of IPC and was sentenced to ten years
of rigorous imprisonment.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has
served more than 03 years, 3 months and 4 days as on
06.12.2020 including remission and thus acquired eligibility for
grant of first regular parole under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan
Prisoners Act, 1958; but, the respondents, vide order impugned
dated 24.08.2020, rejected his case for grant of parole on the
ground that the petitioner is not resident of State of Rajasthan.
Relying on the judgments of this Court in cases of Paras Ram Vs.
State of Rajasthan [2007 (4) WLC (Raj.) 547] and Smt.
Sushila Kanwar Vs. State of Rajasthan [RCC 1994 RCC 564],
he prayed for setting aside the order impugned dated 24.08.2020
and for grant of first regular parole to him.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer.
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. The District
Probation Officer, Varanasi and Senior Superintendent of Police,
Varanasi have not recommended his release on first parole, but
their recommendation is based on mere apprehension and without
any reasonable basis. The purpose of parole is to facilitate family
ties being maintained which cannot be permitted to be frustrated
by the respondents on flimsy grounds.
The Division Bench of this Court in case of Om Prakash Vs.
State of Rajasthan in D.B. Criminal Writ Petition
No.167/2001, decided on 15.01.2002, held as under:-
(3 of 3) [CRLW-604/2020]
"8. The right to parole comes from
humanitarian jurisprudence which is much above
the Human Rights. Thus, in our view Rule 14
sub-rule (a) which prohibits release of a prisoner
who is resident of outside the State of Rajasthan
in comparison to local prisoners on parole makes
a discrimination on the geographical ground and
as such it is per se discriminatory. Thus, the Rule
14 sub-rule (a) only to the extent "Persons
whose ordinary place of residence is outside the
State of Rajasthan" is ultra vires of the Article 14
and 21 of the Constitution of India. The
authorities while considering the case of prisoner
whose ordinary place of residence is outside the
State of Rajasthan can enquire into the conduct
of the convict more intensively but with the
sense of urgency and within the stipulated
period. Reasonable conditions can be imposed for
the return of the convict to jail to serve out the
remaining part of the sentence. "
Consequently, the order impugned dated 24.08.2020 qua the
petitioner 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
Sudha/41
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
