Sunil Kumar @ Monu S/O Shri Satbir @ ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 2674 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

        S.B. Criminal Writ Petition(Parole) No. 669/2021

Sunil Kumar @ Monu S/o Shri Satbir @ Bhola, Aged About 38
Years, R/o Bhagwadi Khurd Ps Behror Dist. Alwar Raj. (At
Present Serving His Sentence In Central Jail Alwar) Through His
Cousin Brother Ajay Kumar S/o Hukam Chand Aged About 34
Years Bawad Sakatpura Dist. Alwar Raj.
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.     State    Of    Rajasthan,        Through        The       Secretary   Home
       Secretariat Jaipur
2.     The Deputy Secretary, Department Of Home (Group-12)
       Government Of Raj. Govt. Secretariat Jaipur
3.     The     Prisoners       Parole       Advisory         Committee       (State
       Committee), Through Its Chairman Director General Of
       Prisons Raj.
4.     Superintendent, Central Jail Alwar
                                                                  ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishram Prajapati For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chandragupt Chopra, PP.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Order

07/07/2021

This parole petition has been filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India with the prayer that the order dated

17.03.2021 issued pursuant to the meeting of Permanent Parole

Committee dated 15.02.2021 whereby the petitioner has been

denied permanent parole on the ground of non availing of three

regular paroles, be quashed.

It has been submitted in the petition that the learned

Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Behror Alwar vide its order

(2 of 3) [CRLW-669/2021]

dt.3.2.2020 convicted the petitioner for the offence under Sections

498A and 304B of IPC and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment.

Out of which the accused petitioner has served more than 7 years

2 months on 17.03.2021.

It has further been submitted that the petitioner had served

more than 7 years 2 months of imprisonment out of the total

sentence of 10 years till 17.03.2021. The conduct of the petitioner

has remained absolutely good and he is continuously getting

remission in jail on the basis of his good conduct and behavior.

Thus, he is entitled to be released on permanent parole.

In the reply, it is submitted that the case of the petitioner

was placed before State Level Parole Advisory Committee but the

same has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not

availed three regular paroles, although there is no specific period

of sentence for eligibility of permanent parole. It has further been

submitted that after availing three regular paroles, his case will be

considered for permanent parole.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused

the record.

Issue raised, in the instant case, is no longer res-integra.

In the case of Suresh & Others Vs. State of Rajasthan,

reported in 2011 (3) WLC 643, Division Bench of this Court had

held that on the technical ground that the petitioner has not

availed three permanent paroles is not a good ground to deny the

parole until some adverse material is brought on record that if the

petitioner is released on parole, the same will cause disturbance in

the society.

Having regard to the submissions made by the parties and in

view of the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court, cited

(3 of 3) [CRLW-669/2021]

herein above, I deem it just and proper to allow the present

petition for parole and set aside the impugned order dated

17.03.2021 qua petitioner, whereby permanent parole was

refused to him.

Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed

and the impugned order dated 17.03.2021 qua petitioner stands

quashed and set aside and the concerned District Authority is

directed to release the convict-petitioner on permanent parole,

subject to furnishing his personal bond in the sum of Rs.

1,00,000/- before the concerned District Magistrate. The petitioner

is also directed to furnish two sureties of Rs. 50,000/-each within

two weeks to the satisfaction of the concerned District Magistrate

with the stipulation that in case during permanent parole, 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.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Seema/59

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)