Shakeel @ Bakra S/O Sh. Abdul ... vs The Secretary To Govt
2021 Latest Caselaw 6870 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

        D.B. Criminal Writ Petition (Parole) No. 1222/2021

Shakeel @ Bakra S/o Sh. Abdul Khalil, Aged About 36 Years, R/o
Banjara Colony Adarsh Nagar PS Kishorepura Kota At Present
R/o Narain Panwale Ki Gali Opp.- Ansari Masjid Bajaj Khana
Rampura Kota (Presently Confined In The High Security Jail
Ajmer) Through His Sister - Miss Zebunisa Ansari D/o Sh. Abdul
Khalil Aged About 40 Years R/o Banjara Colony Adarsh Nagar PS
Kishorepura Kota At Present Narain Panwale Ki Gali Opp. Ansari
Masjid Bajaj Khana Rampura Kota
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.     The Secretary To Govt., Department Of Home Affairs
       Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2.     The District Parole Advisory Committee, Through Its
       Chairman The District Collector And District Magistrate
       Kota
3.     The Superintendent, High Security Jail Ajmer
                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. MI Beg, Advocate
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Rekha Madnani, Public Prosecutor




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

                                    Order

24/11/2021

This writ petition (parole) has been filed under Article

226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer that the petitioner

be released on first regular parole for 20 days.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner was convicted by the trial court vide judgment dated

15.11.2016 for the offence under Sections 364-A or 364-A/149

(2 of 4) [CRLW-1222/2021]

IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. He preferred a

D.B. Criminal Appeal against the said judgment but the same is

pending before this Court. He further submits that the petitioner

applied for parole before the District Parole Advisory Committee

(for short "the Committee"), but his application has been rejected

vide order dated 03.05.2021 by the Committee on the ground that

13 other cases were registered against the petitioner, in which 2

cases are pending trial against him. Learned counsel for the

petitioner further submits that out of two cases said to be pending

against the petitioner one has been decided and only one case is

pending against the petitioner. He further submits that the

petitioner has served more than 7 years, 9 months sentence.

Thus, he has completed substantive part of his sentence and in

view of the Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole

Rules, 1958 (for short 'the Rules of 1958'), he is entitled to be

released on first parole of 20 days. He further submits that during

incarceration, petitioner's conduct is satisfactory. He also submits

that Social Justice and Empowerment Department has

recommended his case for release on first parole. Hence he is

entitled to be granted 20 days' first parole.

In reply to the petition, it has also been submitted that

Superintendent, High Security Jail, Ajmer has not recommended

to release the petitioner on parole on the ground that 13 other

case were registered against the petitioner and one case is still

pending against the petitioner. It has also been submitted that if

the petitioner is released on first parole an untoward incident may

take place. Hence, the petitioner has not been granted regular

first parole of 20 days.

(3 of 4) [CRLW-1222/2021]

Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully

perused the record.

The purpose of parole is to facilitate family ties being

maintained.

The petitioner has already been served a substantive

part of his sentence and only one case is pending against the

petitioner.

In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that

the impugned order, whereby, the parole application of the

petitioner was rejected is unsustainable in the eyes of law as

having been passed in a mechanical manner and without due

application of mind to the facts and law.

Needless to say that in case the petitioner engages

himself in any untoward incident during first regular parole of 20

days under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958, same can be withdrawn

and the petitioner can be called upon to serve his remaining

sentence.

Considering the purpose of the parole as also the

submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, we deem it just

and proper to grant the petitioner first regular parole of 20 days

under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958.

Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby

allowed and the impugned order dated 03.05.2021 qua petitioner

stands quashed and set aside. We direct the concerned District

Authority to release the convict-petitioner on first regular parole of

20 days under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958 subject to his furnishing

a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties of

(4 of 4) [CRLW-1222/2021]

Rs. 50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned District

Magistrate with the stipulation that in case during first regular

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. 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 the petitioner Shakeel @ Bakra, on completion of 20

days' parole period.

The 20 days parole period would be counted from the

date of release of the convict-petitioner.

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

                                   Mohit69









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)