Sunil @ Sameer @ Lalu S/O Late Shri ... vs The State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 2732 Raj/2

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 784/2021

Sunil @ Sameer @ Lalu S/o Late Shri Prem Kumar, Aged About
35 Years, R/o Brahamchari Mohalla Alwar, Police Station Kotwali
Alwar, District Alwar (Raj.) (At Present Serving His Sentence In
Central Jail, Alwar) Through His Younger Brother Dharam Singh
S/o     Late   Shri   Prem      Kumar,       Aged      About       31    Years,   R/o
Brahamchari Mohalla Alwar, Police Station Kotwali Alwar, District
Alwar (Raj.)
                                                                        ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.       The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Home,
         Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.       The Deputy Secretary, Department Of Home (Group-12),
         Government       Of     Rajasthan,         Government           Secretariat,
         Jaipur.
3.       The    Prisoners       Parole       Advisory         Committee        (State
         Committee), Through Its Chairman, Director General Of
         Prisons, Rajasthan.
4.       Superintendent Central Jail, Alwar.
                                                                   ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishram Prajapati, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shyam Prakash Sharma, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Order

08/07/2021

This parole petition has been filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India with the prayer that the order dated 8.4.2021

issued pursuant to the meeting of Permanent Parole Committee

dated 10.3.2021 whereby the petitioner has been denied

permanent parole on the ground of non availing of three regular

paroles.

(2 of 4) [CRLW-784/2021]

It has been submitted in the petition that the learned Special

Judge POCSO Act-2012 and Child Protection Commission Act 2005

No.3, Alwar vide its order dt.14.2.2019 convicted the petitioner for

the offence under Sections 376(I) of IPC for life imprisonment and

in default of payment of fine Rs. 10,000/- to further undergo 3

months additional RI and Section 11/12 of POCSO Act, for 3 years

RI and in default of payment of fine Rs. 3,000/- to further undergo

one month RI and Section 14(1) of POCSO Act, 2012 for five years

RI and in default of payment of Rs. 3,000/- to further undergo one

month additional RI and Section 67 of IT Act for three years RI in

default of payment of 10,000/- to further undergo one month

additional RI and Section 67(b) of IT Act for five years RI and in

default of payment of fine Rs.20,000/- to further undergo one

months additional RI. All the sentences shall run concurrently.

After that petitioner has filed D. B. Criminal Appeal No.88/2019

Sunil @ Sammer @ Lallu V/s State in which the Hon'ble Court vide

judgment dated 02.04.2019 converted the conviction into 12

years rigorous imprisonment in place of life imprisonment for the

offence under Section 376(I) IPC. Out of which the accused

petitioner has served 8 years 3 months and 4 days including the

remission as on 22.4.2021.

It has further been submitted that the petitioner had served

8 years 3 months and 4 days of imprisonment out of the total

sentence of 12 years till 22.4.2021. 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

(3 of 4) [CRLW-784/2021]

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 regular 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

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

petition for parole and set aside the impugned order dated

8.4.2021 qua petitioner, whereby permanent parole was refused

to him.

Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed

and the impugned order dated 8.4.2021 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

(4 of 4) [CRLW-784/2021]

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

Gourav/156

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)