Sanwar Lal vs State
2021 Latest Caselaw 765 Raj

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                      JODHPUR
             D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 316/2020

Sanwar Lal S/o Sh. Hanumana Ram, Aged About 33 Years, at
present lodged in Special Central Jail, Shyalawas, Dausa,
through his Wife Smt. Santosh W/o Sh. Samwar Lal, Age About
29 Years, B/c Bishnoi, R/o Janglu Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner.
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.     State, Through Secretary, Department of Home (Group-
       12), Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2.     The Director General (Jails), Jaipur.
3.     The District Collector, Bikaner.
4.     The Superintendent, Special Central Jail, Shyalawas,
       Dausa.
                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :    Mr. Kaluram Bhati through VC
For Respondent(s)         :    Mr. B.R.Bishnoi for Mr. Farzand Ali,
                               AAG



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS

                                    Order

12th January, 2021

PER HON'BLE MR. SANGEET LODHA,J.

1. This petition is filed by the petitioner, a life convict, seeking

directions to the respondents to release him on permanent parole.

2. The petitioner was convicted for offences under Sections

376(2)(g), 366A and 363 of IPC and was sentenced to suffer life

imprisonment vide judgment dated 20.12.14 passed by the

Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Bikaner in

Sessions Case No.11/13. The petitioner has already served the

(2 of 5) [CRLW-316/2020]

sentence of 9 years, 7 months and 17 days including remission of

1 year, 3 months and 4 days as on 1.8.2020. During the period of

incarceration, the petitioner has availed first, second and third

parole for 20, 30 and 40 days respectively. Being eligible, the

petitioner applied for permanent parole under Rule 9 of Rajasthan

Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (for short "the Rules of

1958"). The application has been rejected by the State Committee

vide decision dated 18.2.20 taking into consideration the fact that

the petitioner has been convicted for commission of heinous crime

of gang rape.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that

the conviction of the prisoner for an offence of heinous nature by

itself cannot be a valid ground for denial of permanent parole

under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958. Drawing the attention of the

Court to Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958, learned counsel submitted

that if during the period of release on regular parole, the prisoner

has behaved well and is not likely to relapse into crime, the State

Committee for Permanent Release on Parole ('the State

Committee') is under an obligation to recommend his case to the

State Government for permanent release on parole. In support of

the contention, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the

this Court in Smt. Suman Devi vs. State & Anr.: D.B.Criminal Writ

Petition No.430/18, decided on 19.2.19.

4. On the other hand, Mr. B.R.Bishnoi, learned Assistant

Government Counsel submitted that the involvement of the

convict in commission of a heinous crime can always be taken into

consideration while deciding the application seeking permanent

parole. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is convicted

for an offence of committing gang rape and therefore, the

(3 of 5) [CRLW-316/2020]

conclusion arrived at by the State Committee in not

recommending his case for release on permanent parole cannot

be faulted with.

5. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the

material on record.

6. It is noticed that in the instant case, the State Committee

has rejected the case of the petitioner for permanent release on

parole solely on the ground that he has been convicted for

committing heinous crime of gang rape. As laid down by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asfaq vs. State of Rajasthan: AIR 2018

SC (Criminal) 37 and a Bench of this Court in Sharwan Manjhi vs.

State & Anr.: D.B.Criminal Writ Petition No.94/20, decided on

25.8.20, the conviction for a serious or heinous crime by itself

cannot operate as absolute bar for denying parole to the prisoner

who has otherwise acquired eligibility for release on parole.

7. In Rajendra @ Raju vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

:D.B.Criminal Writ No.256/20, decided today, after due

consideration of the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in

Asfaq's case (supra) and the ambit and scope of Rule 9 of the

Rules of 1958, this Court held:

"12. A bare perusal of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958 reveals that the parameters laid down for release on regular parole for the specified period and for permanent release on parole are not the same. It is noticed that a convict may be released on first parole for a period of 20 days if he has completed with remission, if any, one fourth of his sentence and subject to good conduct in the jail. He becomes entitle for release for 30 days on second parole and 40 days on third parole if his behaviour has been good during the first and second parole respectively. But then, for permanent release of the prisoner on parole, the following conditions must be satisfied:

(i) Besides the first and second parole even during the third parole, the prisoner has behaved well;

                                   (4 of 5)                [CRLW-316/2020]



 (ii)    His character has been exceedingly well ; and

(iii) His conduct has been such that he is not likely to relapse into crime.

13. As laid down by a Bench of this Court in Suraj Giri Vs. State of Rajasthan: (2010) 4 RLW 3507, the prisoners who have served the requisite period of sentence and are eligible for consideration for release on permanent parole under the Rules of 1958 cannot be denied consideration on the ground that he has not availed first, second and third parole in terms of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958. But the fact remains that if the prisoner had availed the regular parole for the specified period then for consideration of his case, it is absolutely necessary that during the release on regular parole, his behaviour has been good.

14. It goes without saying that while considering the case of the prisoner for permanent release on parole, the State Committee is under an obligation to take into consideration all the parameters/conditions laid down under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958 as aforesaid and record its conclusion thereon while granting or denying the permanent parole to the prisoner. The State Parole Advisory Committee cannot grant or reject an application seeking permanent parole by merely recording its ipse dixit. Of course, in those cases where the person has been convicted for a serious offence as laid down by the Supreme Court in Asfaq's case (supra), the competent authority can have stricter standards in mind while judging his case on the parameters of the good conduct habitual offender or while judging whether he could be considered highly dangerous or prejudicial to the public peace and tranquility etc.

15. Adverting to the facts of the present case, it is noticed that the application of the petitioner seeking permanent release on parole has been rejected by the State Committee solely on the grounds; firstly, that if the prisoner is released on permanent parole, there is possibility of quarrel in his family and secondly, that he has been convicted for committing rape on a minor girl of four years. Suffice it to say that the case of the prisoner for release on permanent parole has not been considered by the State Committee in conformity with the mandate of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958 keeping in view the parameters/conditions laid down as aforesaid.

16. In view of the discussion above, the order impugned passed by the State Committee deserves to be set aside and the matter deserves to be remanded to the State Committee for consideration afresh, keeping in view, the provisions of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958 and the law laid down by the Supreme Court and this Court as aforesaid."

(5 of 5) [CRLW-316/2020]

8. We are of the considered opinion that the controversy

raised in the present petition stands covered by the decision of

this Court in Rajendra @ Raju's case (supra).

9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The decision of the

State Committee dated 18.2.20 in rejecting the application of the

petitioner seeking permanent release on parole is set aside. The

matter is remanded to the State Committee for consideration

afresh in accordance with the provisions of Rule 9 of the Rules of

1958 and the law laid down by this Court in Rajendra @ Raju's

case (supra). The State Committee shall decide the application of

the petitioner afresh expeditiously, in any case, within a period of

six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

                                   (RAMESHWAR VYAS),J                                       (SANGEET LODHA),J

                                            -
                                   12-Aditya/









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)