Upendra @ Sonu vs State
2021 Latest Caselaw 7371 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 53/2021

Upendra @ Sonu S/o Sh. Havji, Aged About 25 Years, At Present Lodged In Central Jail Udaipur, Through His Father Sh. Havji S/o Sh. Vela Ji, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Barapal Khajuri, Falla Kejra, P.s. Gordhan Villas, Dist. Udaipur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State, Home Department, Jaipur.

2. The District Collector, Udaipur.

3. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Udaipur.

                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. K.R. Bhati
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Abhishek Purohit, Associate to
                               Mr. Farzand Ali, AAG-cum-GA



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA

Judgment

16/03/2021

Heard. Perused the material available on record.

The convict-petitioner has been denied third parole of forty

days for the reason that his conduct in the prison was not

satisfactory as in a sudden search being made, a mobile with sim

was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. He did not

perform the jail duties as well and thus, he has been awarded

penalties on both the counts.

Rule 3 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules,

1958 is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"3. Application for release on parole.- A prisoner sentenced to imprisonment for not less than one year

(2 of 2) [CRLW-53/2021]

may, subject to exceptionally good behaviour, be allowed by the Superintendent Jail, in which he is confined, to submit application for parole in triplicate in Form-I."

Thus, it is manifest that before a parole can be entertained,

the conduct of a prisoner in jail must be exceptionally good.

Considering the fact that a mobile phone was recovered from

the present petitioner, it is trite that his conduct in the jail has

been far from satisfactory and hence, the authorities were

perfectly justified in denying third parole to the petitioner. Thus,

giving liberty to the petitioner to re-apply for third parole after

lapse of one year from the date of this order, the instant writ

petition is dismissed.

(DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J 23-Sudhir Asopa/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)