Mahendra Saini S/O Shri Simbhu ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 6672 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

                D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 693/2021

Mahendra Saini S/o Shri Simbhu Dayal, R/o Mishra Wali Dhani,
Police Station Pragpura, District Jaipur (Raj.), Present Address -
Dhani Maliyo Ki Ward No. 6, Police Station Shahpura, District
Jaipur (Raj.) (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur (Raj.)
Through His Sister - Smt. Lalita Saini W/o Shri Maliram Aged
About 40 Years R/o Dhani Maliyo Ki, Ward No. 6, Police Station
Shahpura, District Jaipur (Raj.)
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
1.      State     Of   Rajasthan,         Through        Inspector     General   Of
        Prisons, Directorate Prisons, Ghatgate, Jaipur.
2.      District Parole Advisory Committee, Through The District
        Magistrate, Jaipur (Raj.)
3.      Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur (Raj.)
                                                                   ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Govind Prasad Rawat, Advocate with Mr. T.C. Swami, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Javed Choudhary, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS

Judgment

18/11/2021

This parole petition has been filed under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India with the prayer that the petitioner be

released on 4th regular parole for 40 days under Rule 9 of the

Rajasthan Prisoner's (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958 (for short,

'the Rules of 1958').

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner was convicted by the trial court vide judgment dated

(2 of 4) [CRLW-693/2021]

4.11.2011 for the offence under Sections 302, 460 IPC & Section

3/25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.

He filed a D.B. Cr. Appeal No. 634/2013 against the said

judgment, which came to be dismissed. He submits that the

petitioner has served about 12 years of sentence. Thus, he has

served a substantive part of his sentence. The petitioner was

granted 20, 30 and 40 days' regular parole, but he did not misuse

the liberty granted to him and timely surrendered. He further

submits that the petitioner's jail conduct is satisfactory. The

petitioner filed an application before District Parole Advisory

Committee for releasing him on parole, but the same has been

rejected vide order dated 18.3.2021 on the ground that he did not

appear in the roll call meeting in the evening, for which FIR No.

1049/2019 was registered at Police Station, Sanganer, Jaipur for

the offence under Section 224 IPC. In the said case, the petitioner

was convicted and sentenced to undergo 3 month's imprisonment

and even during pendency of the case, the petitioner was granted

regular parole. He further submits that although 48 other cases

were said to be pending against the petitioner, but most of the

cases have been decided. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to be

granted 4th regular parole of 40 days.

In the reply, it is submitted that the petitioner is an

under trial prisoner. It has also been submitted that 9 criminal

cases are pending against the petitioner at different police

stations. It has also been submitted that the petitioner did not

appear in the roll-call meeting in the evening and jumped from

there, hence the petitioner should not be granted 4th regular

parole.

(3 of 4) [CRLW-693/2021]

Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully

perused the record.

The purpose of parole is to facilitate family ties being

maintained.

Needless to say that in case the petitioner engage

himself in any untoward incident during 4th parole of 40 days,

same can be withdrawn and the petitioner can be called upon to

serve his remaining sentence.

Considering the purpose of parole as also the period

already suffered by the petitioner and more importantly the fact

that the petitioner was granted 3 regular paroles of 20, 30 and 40

days, where he timely surrendered and he was granted parole

even during the pendency of criminal case, we deem it just and

proper to grant the petitioner 4th parole of 40 days.

Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby

allowed and the impugned order dated 18.3.2021 qua petitioner

stands quashed and set aside. We direct the concerned District

Authority to release the convict-petitioner on 4th regular parole of

40 days, subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of

Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 50,000/-each to the

satisfaction of the concerned District Magistrate with the

stipulation that in case during 4th regular parole of 40 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. The

petitioner shall also report to the nearest police station on

alternate day. It will be open to the concerned District Magistrate

to put any other condition, as per Rules, to secure the presence of

(4 of 4) [CRLW-693/2021]

the petitioner Mahendra Saini, on completion of 40 days' parole

period.

                                   (UMA SHANKER VYAS),J                                          (PRAKASH GUPTA),J

                                   DK/11









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)