Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Surja Ram vs State on 25 April, 2022
Bench: Sandeep Mehta, Vinod Kumar Bharwani
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 97/2022
Surja Ram S/o Shri Ganesh Ram, Aged About 50 Years, At
Present Lodged In Open Air Camp, Bichwal, Bikaner Through His
Wife Smt. Bagwati W/o Surja Ram, Aged About 46 Years R/o
Village Ramdhanu, P.s. Nagour, District Nagour.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State, Department Of Home, Jaipur. (Raj.)
2. The District Collector, Nagour.
3. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Bikaner
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kaluram Bhati.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Joshi, GA-cum-AAG.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI
Order
25/04/2022
The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition being
aggrieved of the adverse recommendations dated 28.03.2022
whereby, the application preferred by the petitioner for release on
third parole of 40 days was dismissed assigning the reason that
the petitioner has been convicted for the restricted offence under
Section 364 of the IPC and hence, he cannot be released on parole
in terms of The Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 2021').
On 13.04.2022, this Court was apprised that the trial court
convicted the petitioner for various offences one of them being
Section 364 IPC which is a prohibited offence as per Section 16(2)
(B) of the Rules of 2021. However, the appeal preferred by the
(2 of 4) [CRLW-97/2022]
appellant was accepted by the High Court and the judgment of the
trial court was quashed. The State Government assailed the said
judgment by filing an SLP before Hon'ble the Supreme Court
which was accepted by Judgment dated 10.04.2015 and the
petitioner has been convicted only for the offences punishable
under Sections 302 and 201 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
Taking note of the fact that as per the judgment rendered by
Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the petitioner has not been convicted
for the offence punishable under Section 364 IPC, this Court
directed the District Parole Advisory Committee to reconsider the
case of the petitioner for release on parole. In compliance of the
said direction, the District Parole Advisory Committee has again
rejected the application for third parole filed by the convict
petitioner by recommendations dated 18.04.2022 copy whereof
has been placed on record by the learned AAG. A perusal of the
minutes dated 18.04.2022 indicates that the Committee has
assigned the very same reason as earlier for dismissing the parole
application of the convict. The Committee has interpreted the
Judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court dated 10.04.2022
whereby, the said appeal was allowed and a conclusion has been
drawn that by virtue of acceptance of the State's appeal, the
conviction of Surja Ram for the offence under Section 364 IPC has
been restored.
However, we are unable to agree with this observation of the
Committee. In this regard, we may take note of the fact that the
convict petitioner and one Hapuram were both convicted by the
trial court. The appeal of Hapuram was disposed of by the High
Court while affirming his conviction for the offences punishable
under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and he was acquitted of the other
(3 of 4) [CRLW-97/2022]
charges. Meaning thereby, the conviction of the main accused
Hapuram was not sustained for the offence punishable under
Section 364 IPC though the allegations of the prosecution
witnesses regarding the offence under Section 364 IPC are equal
qua Hapuram and the present petitioner. While accepting the State
appeal in the case of the petitioner Surja Ram, Hon'ble the
Supreme Court specifically held as below:
".....Surja Ram is convicted under Sections 302 and 201 IPC
read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment
and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- on the first count and for 3
years and fine of Rs.1,000/- on the second count......'
Manifestly thus, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has not
convicted the present petitioner for the offence punishable under
Section 364 IPC and hence, there was no justification for the
District Parole Advisory Committee to have rejected the parole
application of the convict petitioner by observing that he has been
convicted for the said offence which is in a restricted category as
per Rule 16(2)(B) of the Rules of 2021.
Accordingly, the instant writ petition is allowed. The
impugned recommendations dated 28.03.2022 and 18.04.2022
passed by the District Parole Advisory Committee, Nagaur are
quashed and struck down and it is ordered that the convict
prisoner Surja Ram S/o Shri Ganesh Ram shall be released on
third parole of 40 days upon his furnishing a personal bond in
the sum of Rs.80,000/- and two sureties in the sum of
Rs.40,000/- each to the satisfaction of Superintendent Central Jail,
Bikaner on the usual terms and conditions. The Superintendent,
Central Jail, Bikaner shall be at liberty to impose other adequate
(4 of 4) [CRLW-97/2022]
and reasonable conditions to ensure return of the convict to the
prison after availing the parole. The term of parole shall be
computed from the date of his actual release.
(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
19-Tikam/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
