Rajasthan High Court
Murli Saini S/O Shri Ganesh ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 3 March, 2022
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition (Parole) No. 1318/2021
Murli Saini S/o Shri Ganesh Narayan Saini, Aged About 45 Years,
R/o Plot No. M-2 Anandpuri Infront Of Delhi Eye Hospital At
Present Plot No. 4 Shanti Road Nayla House Moti Doongri Road
Ps Moti Doongri Dist. Jaipur Raj. (At Present Serving His
Sentence In Central Jail Jaipur) Through His Sister Pushpa W/o
Shri Kaluram Saini Aged About 55 Years R/o Sadar Bazar Maliyon
Ka Mohalla Kanota Ps Kanota Dist. Jaipur Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Home
Secretariat Jaipur
2. The Deputy Secretary Department Of Home (Group-12),
Govt. Of Raj. Govt. Secretariat Jaipur
3. The Prisoners Parole Advisory Committee (State
Committee), Through Its Chairman Director General Of
Prisons Raj.
4. Superintendent, Central Jail Jaipur
5. Dist. Magistrate, Jaipur Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishram Prajapati
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shyam Prakash Sharma, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Order
03/03/2022
This parole petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India with the prayer that the order dated 4.6.2021
issued pursuant to the meeting of Permanent Parole Committee
dated 12.5.2021 whereby the petitioner has been denied
permanent parole on the ground that petitioner has been
convicted for heinous offence of rape, be quashed.
(2 of 3) [CRLW-1318/2021]
It has been submitted in the petition that vide judgment
dated 14.12.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST
(POA) Cases, Jaipur, the petitioner was convicted for the offence
under Sections 376(2)(I) of IPC read with Section 5(M)/6 &
9(M)/10 POCSO Act,2012 and sentenced to undergo 10 years
rigorous imprisonment.
It has further been submitted that the petitioner had served
6 years, 9 months and 7 days of imprisonment out of the total
sentence of 10 years till 20.7.2021. The conduct of the petitioner
has remained absolutely good and he is continuously getting
remission in jail on the basis of his good conduct and behavior.
Thus, he is entitled to be released on permanent parole.
In reply, it is submitted that the case of the petitioner was
placed before State Level Parole Advisory Committee but the same
was rejected on the ground that the petitioner has been convicted
for heinous offence of rape.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused
the record.
Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed.
The impugned order dated 4.6.2021 qua petitioner stands
quashed and set aside. The concerned District Authority is
directed to release the convict-petitioner on permanent parole,
subject to furnishing his personal bond in the sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- before the concerned District Magistrate. The
petitioner is also directed to furnish two sureties of Rs. 50,000/-
each within two weeks to the satisfaction of the concerned District
Magistrate with the stipulation that in case during permanent
parole, the petitioner commits any undesirable activity, he can be
called upon to serve his remaining sentence and at the same time
(3 of 3) [CRLW-1318/2021]
he shall also maintain peace and tranquility during the parole
period and will abide by any other condition imposed by the
authority.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Brijesh 135.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
