Rajasthan High Court
Ramkhiladi S/O Late Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 14 October, 2022
Bench: Sandeep Mehta, Sameer Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 550/2022
Ramkhiladi S/o Late Shri Moolchand, Aged About 69 Years, R/o
Village Bhanwarki, Police Station Bamanvas, District
Sawaimadhopur (Raj.) (At Present In Open Air Camp, Sanganer,
Jaipur) Through His Younger Brother Kunjilal S/o Late Shri
Moolchand, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village Bhanwarki, Police
Station Bamanvas, District Sawaimadhopur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Home,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The District Parole Advisory Committee, Through Its
Chairman, District Magistrate, Jaipur.
3. Superintendent Central Jail, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anshuman Saxena, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Javed Choudhary, AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Order
14/10/2022
1. The convict petitioner has approached this Court through this
writ petition for assailing the minutes/order dated 27.07.2022,
issued by the District Parole Advisory Committee, Jaipur and has
requested for grant of third regular parole of forty days.
2. On perusal of the rejection order qua the petitioner, it is
reflected that the reasons assigned therein for the denial of
regular parole for forty days to the convict-petitioner are totally
perfunctory and non-speaking. Moreover, the impugned order
suffers from bias and non-application of mind. The Committee
rejected the parole application merely on account of disagreement
(2 of 4) [CRLW-550/2022]
by the District Magistrate, Sawaimadhopur and Superintendent of
Police, Sawaimadhopur.
3. We have perused the said order and the letter dated
12.07.2022 annexed with the reply, which reveals that despite the
apprehension of a fight between the complainant and the
petitioner's side, nothing cogent and significant has been specified
therein.
4. Considering the same, we are of the firm view that the
impugned order/mandate dated 27.07.2022, is totally
unsubstantiated and laconic. Moreover, it would be prudent to say
that at point No. 9 of the impugned order, nothing has been
specified categorically and there is no reflection in the said order
of the Superintendent of Police Sawaimadhopur, that while availing
the earlier parole facilities, whether any adverse report was
received regarding the conduct of the convict-petitioner. As per
Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules,
2021, only the good conduct and behaviour of the convict during
the first and second regular parole has to be taken into
consideration. In this regard, the State Government has also
issued a circular dated 28.10.2022, wherein it is specified that if a
convict has already been given the benefit of parole and on
subsequent occasions, he has applied for the same, his case can
only be rejected on the ground of adverse report of the District
Magistrate, Sawaimadhopur and Superintendent of Police,
Sawaimadhopur qua the conduct of the prisoner while availing the
previous parole(s).
5. Hon'ble Apex Court has also held that the philosophy behind
parole is three folds: (1) to teach good conduct to the convicted
prisoners, (2) to keep the link between the convicted prisoner and
(3 of 4) [CRLW-550/2022]
his family alive during the period of incarceration; and (3) to bring
him into the main stream of the society so that when he is
eventually released, he does not find himself to be a stranger.
Under similar circumstances, in the case of Smt. Indra Kanwar
Vs. State & Ors.: DB Criminal Writs No. 17/2019, the Court
considered the aspect of the grant of subsequent parole and held
that once, a convict avails the facility of regular parole, while
considering the subsequent parole application, prime importance
shall be given to the conduct of the convict while he was on parole
on previous occasion(s).
6. Considering the advisory issued by the Home
Department, Government of Rajasthan dated 20.02.2019 and the
State Government Circular dated 28.10.2005, which are binding
upon the respondents; considering the fact that the conduct of
petitioner is satisfactory; that he fulfills the criteria of third parole
under Rule 10 of the Rules of 2021 and has undergone and served
a sentence of 10 years and six months approximately and relying
upon the judgment of Division Bench in similar facts and
circumstances in the case of Smt. Indra Kanwar (supra), we
are inclined to allow the writ petition.
7. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is allowed. The
convict-petitioner Ramkhiladi S/o Late Shri Moolchand shall be
released on third regular parole for a period of forty days from
the date of his release provided he furnishes a personal bond in
the sum of Rs. 40,000/- along with two surety bonds of Rs.
20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the Superintendent, Central
Jail, Jaipur on usual terms and conditions. The Superintendent,
Central Jail, Jaipur shall be at liberty to impose other adequate
and reasonable conditions to ensure return of the covict-petitioner
(4 of 4) [CRLW-550/2022]
to the custody after availing the parole. His term of parole shall
be computed from the date of his actual release.
8. The parole writ petition is allowed, accordingly.
(SAMEER JAIN),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
Pooja /45
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
