Meetha Lal S/O Prabhu Lal vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 330 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

             D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 884/2020

Meetha Lal S/o Prabhu Lal, R/o Rodii Guwadi Tan Simer, Police
Station,   Sapotra     Dist.     Karauli       (Confined         In   Central   Jail
Bharatpur) through His Brother-In-Law Girdhari Son Of Sonya
R/o House No 101 Gurjar Mohalla Salempur, PS Salempur Dist.
Sawai Madhopur Raj.
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.     State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
       Home, Government Of Raj. Jaipur
2.     Dist. Magistrate, Karauli
3.     Superintendent, Central Jail Bharatpur
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dheeraj Singhal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Gurjar, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA

Order

18/01/2021

This parole petition has been filed under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India with the prayer that the petitioner be

released on 4th regular parole for 07 days.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner was convicted by the trial court vide judgment dated

30.10.2006 for the offence under Sections 302 and 149 IPC and

sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The petitioner was

arrested in May, 2003 and since then he is in judicial custody. He

submits that the petitioner has served about 13 years 4 months of

sentence without remission. The petitioner moved an application

(2 of 4) [CRLW-884/2020]

before Superintendent, Central Jail, Bharatpur for releasing him on

4th regular parole for 07 days, who in turn placed his application

before the District Parole Advisory Committee, Karauli for

consideration, but the same has been rejected vide order dated

14.7.2020 on the ground of adverse police report, which is without

any basis. He further submits that case for regular parole should

be considered by the parole committee on the basis of the conduct

and behaviour of the convict-prisoner in jail and not on the basis

of adverse police report. He further submits that in the police

report, Superintendent of Police, Karauli mentioned that for the

period from 20.11.2013 to 29.12.2013 when the petitioner was

released on 3rd parole, he did not surrender on time and

absconded. Subsequently on 26.6.2017, the petitioner was

arrested with illegal weapon and case no. 143/2017 was

registered him for the offence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act.

In this regard, he has placed reliance on the order dated

1.12.2017 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil

Writ Petition No. 19309/2017 titled Umar Mohammad Versus State

of Rajasthan & Ors.; as also the order dated 28.11.2017 passed

by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.

20095/2017 titled Govind Singh Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.

and contended that in terms of Rule 18 of the Rajasthan Prisoners

(Release on Parole) Rules, 1958 if a convict jumps parole, that

would not be an absolute bar for granting him second, third or

fourth parole. He further submits that jail conduct of the

petitioner is satisfactory and even the Social Justice and

Empowerment Department has recommended to release the

petitioner on parole. After registering the case no. 143/2017 on

account of having the illegal weapon, the petitioner is behind the

(3 of 4) [CRLW-884/2020]

bars for about 3 1/2 years. The period of 4th parole is otherwise

40 days, but on account of escaping from parole and registration

of case, it gets curtailed into 7 days. Hence, the petitioner is

entitled to be granted 4th regular parole of 40 days.

In the reply, it is submitted that the petitioner is

undergoing life imprisonment sentence for the offence under

Section 302/149 IPC. Although the Superintendent of Jail has

reported that the conduct of the petitioner in jail is satisfactory,

but due to escaping from 40 days' regular parole, did not

recommend parole to the petitioner. He submits that as the

petitioner had earlier jumped from parole and illegal weapon was

also recovered from him during absconding from jail, the

petitioner should not be granted 4th regular parole.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully

perused the record.

The purpose of parole is to facilitate family ties being

maintained.

Needless to say that in case the petitioner engage

himself in any untoward incident during 4th parole of 07 days,

same can be withdrawn and the petitioner can be called upon to

serve his remaining sentence.

Considering the purpose of parole as also the period

already suffered by the petitioner and more importantly in view of

the orders passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the

case of Umar Mohammad (supra) and Govind Singh (supra), we

deem it just and proper to grant the petitioner 4th parole of 07

days.

(4 of 4) [CRLW-884/2020]

Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby

allowed and the impugned order dated 17.7.2020 qua petitioner

stands quashed and set aside. We direct the concerned District

Authority to release the convict-petitioner on 4th regular parole of

07 days, subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of

Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 50,000/-each to the

satisfaction of the concerned District Magistrate with the

stipulation that in case during 4th regular parole of 07 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.

(CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA),J (PRAKASH GUPTA),J

DILIP KHANDELWAL /33

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)