Narendra Kumar S/O Shri Data Ram vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 3020 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

               D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 839/2021

Narendra Kumar S/o Shri Data Ram, Aged About 41 Years, R/o
Khedki Mukkad PS Kotputli Tehsil Kotputli Dist. Jaipur Raj.
Presently R/o Village Chharsa Ward No. 4 Rajputana Mohalla Post
Gadvadi PS Manoharpur Tehsil Sahpura Dist. Jaipur
(At Present Open Air Camp Sanganer Jaipur) Through his wife
Meera Devi Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Rampur Police
Station Bansoor Tehsil Bansoor Dist. Alwar Raj.
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.     State     Of   Rajasthan,         Through         the      Secretary   Home
       Secretariat Jaipur
2.     The Deputy Secretary, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Department Of
       Home (Group-12 ) Govt. Secretariat Jaipur Raj.
3.     The      Prisoners       Parole       Advisory         Committee       (State
       Committee), Through its Chairman, Director General Of
       Prisons Rajasthan
4.     The Distt. Magistrate, Jaipur
5.     Superintendent, Central Jail Jaipur
                                                                   ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anshuman Saxena, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Gurjar, PP

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

Order

20/07/2021

This parole petition has been filed under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India with the prayer that the order dated

8.4.2021 be quashed and set-aside and the petitioner be released

on permanent parole.

(2 of 4) [CRLW-839/2021]

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner was convicted by the trial court vide judgment dated

27.9.2007 for the offence under Sections 302 & 201 IPC and

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

Criminal Appeal No.1766/2007 before this Court, which came to

be dismissed. He further submits that the petitioner has served

more than 18 years, 6 months and 8 days of sentence with

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

and is entitled for permanent parole under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan

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

1958"). He further submits that petitioner has already availed 20,

30 and 40 days parole, but he never misused the liberty granted

to him. Presently, the petitioner is serving his sentence in open air

camp. Probation and Jail Welfare Officer, Jaipur has recommended

to release the petitioner on parole and presently the jail conduct

of the petitioner is satisfactory, yet the case of the petitioner for

permanent parole has been rejected on the ground of misconduct.

The order dated 8.4.2021 has been passed in a mechanical

manner and without any basis, therefore, the same is liable to be

quashed and set-aside and the petitioner is entitled to be released

on permanent parole.

Reply to the petition has been filed. It has been

submitted that on having found the misconduct of the petitioner in

Open Air Camp, he was sent in Jail on 5.5.2020 and thereafter in

compliance of the order dated 23.10.2010, he was again sent in

Open Air Camp, Sanganer, Jaipur. It has also been submitted that

looking at the previous misconduct of the petitioner, the Parole

Committee did not recommend the case of the petitioner for

permanent parole. In support of his submissions, learned PP has

(3 of 4) [CRLW-839/2021]

drawn the attention of the Court towards the letter dated 6.7.2021

sent by Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur to the office of

Government Advocate, wherein it has been mentioned that the

petitioner is a habitual drinker and in open air camp, the petitioner

quarreled with co-convicts while he was in a drunken state.

In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that mere bald allegations have been levelled against the

petitioner. If there was any misconduct on the part of the

petitioner, action should have been taken, but no action was taken

against the petitioner.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully

perused the record.

The purpose of parole is to facilitate maintenance of

family ties. From a perusal of the letter dated 6.7.2021, it is clear

that the same has been passed on the basis of assumption that an

untoward incident may take place, but no action is found to have

been taken for the alleged misconduct of the petitioner.

In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that

the impugned order dated 8.4.2021 whereby the parole

application of the petitioner was rejected is unsustainable in the

eyes of law because it is passed in a mechanical manner and

without due application of mind to the facts and law.

Needless to say that in case the petitioner engages

himself in any untoward incident during permanent parole under

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

(4 of 4) [CRLW-839/2021]

and proper to grant the petitioner permanent parole under the

Rules of 1958.

Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby

allowed and the impugned order dated 8.4.2021 qua petitioner

stands quashed and set aside. We direct the concerned Authority

to release the convict-petitioner on permanent parole under 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 trial court 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.

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

Ashish/DK/55

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)