Rajasthan High Court
Satyendra @ Pintu @ Mintu Son Of ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 25 June, 2021
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition (Parole) No. 641/2021
Satyendra @ Pintu @ Mintu Son of Shri Dharmendra, Aged About
24 Years, Resident of Village Amarpura Khurd, Police Station
Sigana, District Jhunjhunu (Presently Confined In Central Jail
Bikaner) Through His Younger Brother Vikram Somra Son Of
Dharmendra, Aged About 21 Years, Resident Of Village Amarpura
Khurd, Police Station Sigana, Tehsil Buhana, District Jhunjhunu
(Rajasthan).
----Accused/Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. District Magistrate, Jhunjhunu.
3. Superintendent, Central Jail Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dheeraj Singhal through VC
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Laxman Meena, Addl. G.C.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL (V.J.)
Order
25/06/2021
This criminal writ petition (parole) is filed for setting aside
the order dated 24.02.2021 passed by the District Parole Advisory
Committee, Jhunjhunu whereby, the application of the petitioner
for grant of first regular parole has been dismissed.
The facts as emerging from the record are that petitioner
was convicted by the Court of learned Special Judge, (POCSO) Act
Cases, Jhunjhunu in Sessions Case No.25/2019 vide judgment
dated 02.07.2020 under Section(s) 363 & 366 of IPC and Section
(2 of 3) [CRLW-641/2021]
3/4 of the POCSO Act and was sentenced to 7 years rigorous
imprisonment.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has
served more than 2 years, 2 months and 7 days as on
10.03.2021 including remission and thus acquired eligibility for
grant of first regular parole under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan
Prisoners Act, 1958; but, the respondents, vide order impugned
dated 24.02.2021, rejected his case for grant of parole on the
ground of apprehension of violation of law and order as the
petitioner and the complainant party are resident of same vicinity.
He submitted that as per the report of the Superintendent, Central
Jail, Bikaner, his jail conduct has remained satisfactory. Relying
on the judgments of this Court in cases of Paras Ram Vs. State
of Rajasthan [2007 (4) WLC (Raj.) 547] and Smt. Sushila
Kanwar Vs. State of Rajasthan [RCC 1994 RCC 564], he
prayed for setting aside the order impugned dated 24.02.2021
and for grant of first regular parole to him.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer.
Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the
record.
Undisputedly, the petitioner has earned eligibility for grant of
first regular parole under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958. The
Assistant Director, Department of Social Justice and
Empowerment, Jhunjhunu has, vide its report dated 03.02.2021,
accorded no objection for grant of regular parole to him. The local
police has not recommended his release on first parole, but its
recommendation is based on mere apprehension and without any
reasonable basis. The purpose of parole is to facilitate family ties
(3 of 3) [CRLW-641/2021]
being maintained which cannot be permitted to be frustrated by
the respondents on flimsy grounds.
Consequently, the order impugned dated 24.02.2021 qua the
petitioner is quashed and set aside. This writ petition is allowed.
The petitioner shall be released on parole for 20 days on
furnishing personal bond in sum of Rs.1,000,00/- with two
sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned
District Magistrate with the stipulation that in case during parole of
20 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.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL (V.J.)),J
Manish/83
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
