Rajasthan High Court
Imran S/O Shri Sajid Husain vs State Of Rajasthan on 25 February, 2021
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition (Parole) No. 908/2020
Imran S/o Shri Sajid Husain, R/o Khanpur PS Khanpur Dist.
Jhalawar Raj. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Kota Raj.)
Through His Son Akram S/o Shri Imran Aged About 32 Years R/o
7 E 47 Block 7 E Sector 7 Vigyan Nagar Ps Vigyan Nagar Dist.
Kota Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Inspector General Of Prisons
Directorate Prisons Ghatgate Jaipur
2. Dist. Parole Advisory Committee, Through The Distt.
Magistrate Jhalawar Raj.
3. Superintendent, Central Jail Kota Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Govind Prasad Rawat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prashant Sharma, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
25/02/2021
This criminal writ petition (parole) is filed for setting aside
the order dated 25.09.2020 passed by the District Magistrate,
Jhalawar 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 by the Court of learned Special Judge, (POCSO)
Act, 2012, No.1, Jhalawar in Sessions Case No.183/2018 vide
judgment dated 04.10.2019 under Section(s) 363 & 366 of IPC,
Section 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
(2 of 3) [CRLW-908/2020]
(POCSO) Act, 2012 (for brevity "the Act of 2012") and was
sentenced to 10 years imprisonment.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has
served more than 3 years, 6 months and 21 days as on
10.01.2020 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 25.09.2020, rejected his
case for grant of parole on the ground of his conviction under
Section 376 IPC and under the provisions of the Act of 2012.
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 25.09.2020
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 local
police has not recommended his release on first parole. Assistant
Director, Department of Social Justice and Empowerment,
Jhalawar has, vide its report dated 22.09.2020, accorded no
objection for grant of regular parole to him. The police
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.
Consequently, the order impugned dated 25.09.2020 qua the
petitioner is quashed and set aside. This writ petition is allowed.
(3 of 3) [CRLW-908/2020]
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/216
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
