Tuesday, 09, Jun, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Rampratap @ Pratapnath vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 9544 Raj

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 9544 Raj
Judgement Date : 25 May, 2021

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rampratap @ Pratapnath vs State Of Rajasthan on 25 May, 2021
Bench: Sandeep Mehta, Devendra Kachhawaha

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 122/2021

Rampratap @ Pratapnath S/o Shri Maniram, Aged About 30 Years, At Present Lodged In Central Jail Bikaner Through His Wife Smt. Manju W/o Shri Rampratap @ Pratapnath, B/c Nath, Aged About 28, R/o Ward No. 2, P.s. Ravatsar, District Hanumangarh.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Home Dept. Jaipur.

2. The District Collector, Hanumangarh.

3. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Bikaner.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kalu Ram Bhati (through VC) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Farzand Ali, G.A.-cum-A.A.G with Mr. Abhishek Purohit

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA

Judgment

25/05/2021

The instant writ petition has been filed by the convict-

petitioner for assailing the adverse recommendations dated

30.12.2020 whereby the application for first parole filed on behalf

of the petitioner has been rejected.

We have heard and considered the submissions advanced at

bar and have gone through the material available on record.

The petitioner has significant criminal antecedents and in the

year 2020 itself, the petitioner was found in possession of a mobile

phone inside the prison for which, the FIR No.506/2020 has been

(2 of 2) [CRLW-122/2021]

registered against him at the Police Station Hanumangarh

Junction.

In view of this fact, apparently, the conduct of the petitioner

outside the jail and inside the jail is totally unsatisfactory and such

conduct dis-entitles him to parole. Thus, we are not inclined to

enlarge the petitioner on parole while exercising extraordinary writ

jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner is given liberty to renew

the prayer for parole after a period of one year from the date of

decision of the criminal case registered against him for

unauthorized possession of the mobile phone in prison.

With the above observations, the parole writ petition is

rejected.

(DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J

13-Sudhir Asopa/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter