Rahul S/O Shri Vishambhar @ Kalwa vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 5924 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

        S.B. Criminal Writ Petition (Parole) No. 428/2022

Rahul S/o Shri Vishambhar @ Kalwa
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
State Of Rajasthan & Ors.
                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishram Prajapati For Respondent(s) : Mr. Laxman Meena, AGA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR

Order

26/08/2022

The petitioner-Rahul, who is a convict and undergoing

imprisonment has approached this Court through his wife for grant

of emergent parole for a period of thirty days on the ground that

his wife wants progeny.

The petitioner or his wife has not disclosed whether they

have any children or not.

Let the petitioner file affidavit in this regard.

A Division Bench of this Court in Nand Lal Vs. State & Ors.

reported in D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.10/2022 decided on

05.04.2022 was confronted with the same issue and concluded as

follows:-

"As an upshot of the observations made herein above, we are of the considered view that though there is no express provision in the Rajasthan Prisoners Release On Parole Rules, 2021 for releasing the prisoner on parole on the ground of his wife to have progeny; yet considering the religious philosophies, cultural, sociological and humanitarian

(2 of 2) [CRLW-428/2022]

aspects, coupled with the fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution of India and while exercising extra ordinary power vested in it, this Court deem it just and proper to allow the instant writ petition."

The order of the Division Bench was challenged before the

Hon'ble Supreme Court by the State of Rajasthan in SLP

(Criminal) Diary No.21875/2022, State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs.

Nand Lal. While disposing of the application on 01.08.2022, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:-

"While we have reservations on some of the observations made in the impugned order, we are not inclined to interfere with the direction which would have been implemented. However, it is clarified that it will be open to the petitioners to raise all pleas and contentions before the High Court. In case any third person applies for parole/furlough giving same/similar reason. Such plea and contention would be examined on merits."

Since the matter had already been decided by a Division

Bench and in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,

a fresh look is required on the grounds raised by the State

respondent. Hence, the matter needs to be heard by a Larger

Bench.

Let the matter be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for

necessary order.

(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J

Sunita/1

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)