Kailash @ Kedar vs State
2021 Latest Caselaw 220 Raj

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 220 Raj
Judgement Date : 7 January, 2021

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Kailash @ Kedar vs State on 7 January, 2021

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 384/2020

Kailash @ Kedar S/o Late Shri Madhulal, Aged About 34 Years, At Present Lodged In Open Air Camp Mandore, Under Central Jail Jodhpur Through His Mother Smt. Dhapu Bai W/o Late Shri Madhulal Aged About 68 Years, By Caste Jat, R/o Village Dhamana P.s. Kapasan District Chittorgarh.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State, Through Secretary Of Home Dept. Jaipur.

2. The District Collector, Chittorgarh.

3. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur.

                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Kalu Ram Bhati - on video call
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Sudheer Tak PP



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

                                       Order

07/01/2021

The convict petitioner has preferred the present writ petition

against the order dated 26.02.2020, whereby the case of the convict

for releasing him on permanent parole has been rejected.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide judgment

dated 28/01/2015 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge,

Chittorgarh in Session Case No. 206/2011, the petitioner was

convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 302/149 IPC

and to undergo sentence for life imprisonment. The prisoner

thereafter filed appeal before this Court which was partly allowed and

vide judgment dated 24.08.2017, the conviction for offence under

Section 302/149 IPC was altered to Section 304 Part I IPC and he

was sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.

50,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo two months

(2 of 3) [CRLW-384/2020]

imprisonment. He further submits that out of the ten years sentence,

the convict petitioner has already undergone 09 years and 11

months imprisonment including remission. The conduct of the convict

is good and no offence was conducted while he was released on first

and second parole. He has relied upon a judgment passed by a

Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Narayan Lal vs. State &

Ors (S.B. Civil Parole Writ Petition No. 9577/2014, decided on

04/02/2015), S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 75/2020 (Santosh

Kumar Vs. State &Ors), S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 78/2020

(Sagarmal Vs. State &Ors)

In reply to the writ petition, it is stated that conduct of the

prisoner has been found to be satisfactory.

I have considered rival submissions of the parties.

The fact that the petitioner has not misused the liberty of

enlargement on first second and third parole as also the fact that no

offence was committed by him during the aforesaid period, fortifies

that the conduct of the convict petitioner during last eight years is

not questionable.

Section 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules,

1958 reads as under:-

"A prisoner, who has completed with remission, if any, (one- fourth) of his sentence and subject to good conduct in the Jail, may be released on 1st parole for 20 days including days of journey to home and back, and for 30 days on 2nd parole provided his behaviour has been good during the 1st parole and for 40 days on third parole provided his behavoiur has been good during second parole. If during the third parole also the prisoner has behaved well and his character has been exceedingly well and if the prisoner's conduct has been such that he is not likely to relapse into crime, his case may be recommended to the Government through the State

(3 of 3) [CRLW-384/2020]

Committee for permanent release on parole on such conditions as deemed fit by the Superintendent of Jail and the District Magistrate concerned; the chief condition among them being that if the prisoner while on parole commits any offence or abets, directly or indirectly, commission of any offence, he has to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence in addition to any sentence imposed upon him by reason of such an offence. In cases the permanent release on parole is rejected the prisoner will be eligible for release on parole for 40 days every year subject to the same conditions for the remaining period of his sentence."

In these circumstances, the State Parole Committee, while not

recommending the case of the convict-prisoner for his release on

permanent parole, was not justified on the ground mentioned in the

meeting dated 13.01.2020 to the effect that the prisoner has not

undergone three regular paroles. No other reason has been stated

for not recommending the case of the petitioner for releasing him on

permanent parole. Further, the convict-prisoner has already availed

two regular paroles.

In view of the above, this petition for writ deserves to be

allowed and is hereby allowed. The convict-prisoner Kailash @ Kedar

S/o Late Shri Madhulal be released on permanent parole provided he

furnishes a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) to the

satisfaction of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur with the

usual conditions enshrined in Rule 9 of the Rules and as may be

prescribed by the concerned Superintendent of Jail.