Dinesh Kumar @ Pahalwan S/O Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 802 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

               D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 816/2020

Dinesh Kumar @ Pahalwan S/o Shri Hetram, R/o Nandgav, PS
Sadar Distt. Bhiwani (Hariyana) (At Present Confined In Central
Jail Jaipur (Raj.)
Through His Brother Sunil Kumar S/o Shri Hetram, Aged About
34 Years, R/o Nandgav, PS Sadar, Distt. Bhiwani (Hariyana)
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.     State    Of   Rajasthan,         Through        Inspector     General   Of
       Prisons, Directorate Prisons, Ghatgate, Jaipur.
2.     Distt. Parole Advisory Committee, Through The Distt.
       Magistrate, Jaipur (Raj.)
3.     Superintendent, Central Jail Jaipur (Raj.)
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. T.C. Swami for Mr. Govind Prasad Rawat For Respondent(s) : Ms. Alka Bhatnagar, Public Prosecutor

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

Order

27/01/2021 This parole petition has been filed under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India with the prayer that the petitioner be

released on regular parole for 7 days.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner was convicted by the trial court vide judgment dated

27.05.2014 for the offence under section 302/120B IPC and

sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. He preferred D.B. Cr.

Appeal No.786/2014 against the said judgment, which came to be

dismissed by this Court. He further submits that the petitioner is

(2 of 3) [CRLW-816/2020]

in custody since his conviction and during trial also he remained

behind bars. He has served more than 8 years and 9 months

sentence. Thus he has served a substantive part of his sentence.

He further submits that there is no complaint against him by the

authorities concerned and therefore, he is entitled for regular

parole of 7 days under Rule 18 of the Rajasthan Prisoners

(Release on Parole) Rules, 1958. He further submits that the

petitioner is serving in prisoner jail service as well. He applied for

parole under Rule 18 of the Rule of 1958 to the District Parole

Advisory Committee, but his application has been dismissed vide

order dated 17.09.2020 on the ground that he absconded while he

was released on 20 days first regular parole, although the

Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur has mentioned that the

conduct of the petitioner in jail is satisfactory.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the same and

submits that since the petitioner did not return within the

stipulated period while he was granted first regular parole,

therefore, he is not entitled to be released on 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 engages

himself in any untoward incident during first parole of 7 days

under Rule 18 of the Rules of 1958 same can be withdrawn and

the petitioner can be called upon to serve his remaining sentence.

Considering the purpose of the parole as also the

submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, we deem it just

(3 of 3) [CRLW-816/2020]

and proper to grant the petitioner first parole of 7 days under Rule

18 of the Rules of 1958.

Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby

allowed and the impugned order dated 17.09.2020 qua petitioner

stands quashed and set aside. We direct the concerned District

Authority to release the convict-petitioner on first parole of 7 days

under Rule 18 of the Rules of 1958 subject to his furnishing a

personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two local sureties

of Rs. 50,000/-each to the satisfaction of the concerned District

Magistrate with the stipulation that in case during first parole of 7

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

Prerit / 13

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)