Satbir @ Bhola S/O Late Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 2334 Raj/2

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

         S.B. Criminal Writ Petition (Parole) No. 787/2021

Satbir @ Bhola S/o Late Shri Hardayan Singh, Aged About 58
Years, R/o Bhagwadi Khurd, Police Station Behror, District Alwar
(Raj.) (At Present Serving His Sentence In Central Jail, Alwar)
Through His Cousin Son Ajay Kumar S/o Hukam Chand, Aged
About 34 Years, R/o Bawad Sakatpura, District Alwar (Raj.)
301706.
                                                                         ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
1.      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 through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chandragupt Chopra, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Order

28/05/2021

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, be quashed.

(2 of 3) [CRLW-787/2021]

It has been submitted in the petition that the learned

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

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 six years ten

months and 18 days on 8.4.2021.

It has further been submitted that the petitioner had served

6 years, 10 months and 8 days of imprisonment out of the total

sentence of 10 years till 8.4.2021. 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

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.

(3 of 3) [CRLW-787/2021]

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

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

Brijesh 90.

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)