Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Naresh Kumar vs State on 28 January, 2021
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 295/2020
Naresh Kumar S/o Shri Devi Lal, Aged About 28 Years, At
Present Lodged In Central Jail , Udaipur Through His Father Shri
Devi Lal S/o Shri Rama Ji , Age About 53 Years , R/o Bhakra Fala
Kallan P.s. Pahada , Distt. Udaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State, Through Secretary Of Home Department Jaipur
(Raj)
2. The District Collector, Udaipur
3. The Superintendent, Central Jail , Udaipur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kalu Ram Bhati
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Singh, PP a/w Mr. Avinash
Godara, for the State
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
28/01/2021
In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, abundant caution is being
taken while hearing the matters in Court.
The petitioner is a convict prisoner and has preferred the
present petition for grant of permanent parole.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
judgment of Kundan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in
D.B. Criminal Writs No.83/2019 decided on 11.03.2019,
relevant portion of which reads as follows :-
"Thus, the fulcrum of the entire controversy hinges
on the issue whether the period of abscondance of two
days can be considered to be an impediment in the way
of the convict to be released on permanent parole.
(2 of 4) [CRLW-295/2020]
Suffice it to say that while considering the above
mentioned writ petition No.76/2018 filed by the convict,
this Court has held that the infraction was trivial and
reversed the order whereby on the very same ground,
the convict was transferred from the Open Air Camp to
Central Jail. The convict was sent back to the Open Air
Camp.
In view of the admitted fact that the trivial
infraction has been virtually been effaced by order dated
09.04.2018 for the purpose of dealing with the prisoner
under the Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp
Rules,1972, we feel that it deserves to be eschewed from
consideration while considering the case of the convict
for release on permanent parole as well. The conduct of
the convict in prison for a long significant period of 14
years has been good and on the strength thereof, he has
earned three years' remission. Thus, this good conduct
cannot be allowed to be washed off by a trivial breach in
the nature of two days' abscondance.
In this background, we feel that the jail authorities
were not justified in rejecting the application of
permanent parole filed by the convict prisoner Daulat
Singh. Thus, the impugned recommendations (Annex.1)
dated 06.07.2018 are hereby quashed and set aside qua
the convict Daulat Singh. It is directed that the
petitioner's father, convict Daulat Singh S/o Shri Hem
Singh shall be released on permanent parole upon
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
and two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each to the
satisfaction of Superintendent, Central Jail, Udaipur. The
Superintendent, Central Jail, Udaipur shall be at liberty to
impose other adequate and reasonable conditions. "
In the present case also, the petitioner having been released
on parole for 30 days on 09.08.2018 was to surrender on
07.09.2018 but due to excessive rainfall could not surrender and
(3 of 4) [CRLW-295/2020]
after 2 days was arrested. Thereafter, the petitioner was again
granted seven days parole on 27.02.2020, which was duly
completed by the present petitioner.
Reply has been filed.
Reliance is placed on Section 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners
Release on Parole Rules, 1958, which reads as under :
"A prisoner, who has completed with remission,
if any, [onefourth] of his sentence and subject to
good conduct in the Jail, may be released on Ist
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 Ist
parole and for 40 days on third parole provided
his behaviour has been good during the 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 he is not
likely to replace into crime, his case may be
recommended to the Government through the 3
[State Committee] for permanent release on
parole on such conditions as deemed fit by the
Superintendent 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 case 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 the case of the petitioner too, the parole has not been
rejected on merit but only on the ground stated above. No other
reason has been given for not recommending his release on
parole.
(4 of 4) [CRLW-295/2020]
It is not disputed that the convict prisoner was earlier
granted parole three times. The petitioner was convicted for the
offences under Section 6 of POCSO Act and Section 392, 342 &
363 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of 10 years, out of which, he has already undergone the
sentence of 07 years, 09 months and 17 days, (including jail
remission) as on 09.08.2020, which is not in dispute.
While following the aforesaid judgment of Division Bench of
this Court, the present petition for grant of permanent parole is
allowed and the Superintendent, Central Jail, Udaipur is directed
to release petitioner/prisoner Naresh Kumar S/o Shri Devi Lal
from jail on permanent parole, if not required in any other case,
on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and
two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each (out of which one surety will be
of close family member) to the satisfaction of the Superintendent,
Central Jail, Udaipur with the usual condition enshrined in Rule 9
of the Rules and as may be prescribed by the concerned
Superintendent of Jail.
A copy of this order be given to the learned Public Prosecutor
and be also sent to the concerned Superintendent of Jail.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
213-Sudheer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
