Mangilal vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 11097 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 267/2022

Mangilal S/o Ram Chandra, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Police Thana Jaawar Dist. Jhalawar Raj.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Home Secretary Dept. Of Home Govt. Of Raj. Jaipur

2. The Superintendent, Central Jail Jodhpur

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anirudh Purohit.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Joshi, GA-cum-AAG.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

06/09/2022

The convict petitioner was undergoing life imprisonment at

the Central Jail, Jodhpur after having been convicted by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.4, Jhalawar vide

judgment dated 11.09.2003. The State Government, while

exercising powers conferred upon it by Section 432 Cr.P.C., issued

an order dated 28.03.2021 on the eve of 'Rajasthan Establishment

Day (30.03.2021)' to grant State remission and parole to the class

of convicts mentioned in the order dated 28.03.2021. The order

was conveyed to the concerned authorities. It seems that

construing the said order to be an order of absolute clemency, the

petitioner prematurely released from prison by the

Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur vide order dated

30.03.2021. However, later on, it came to light that the petitioner

(2 of 3) [CRLW-267/2022]

was not entitled to be so released under the order dated

28.03.2021 in view of the conditions specified in Clause No.1 of

the said order and thus, the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur,

passed yet another order dated 12.05.2022 revoking the earlier

order dated 30.03.2021 on the ground that the petitioner had

erroneously been given benefit of premature release. Being

aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the instant

writ petition.

The respondents, in their reply, have asserted that the

petitioner had absconded while undergoing the life imprisonment.

He was found involved in a prohibited/ restricted offence during

the period he remained absconding and has been convicted and

sentenced for the said offence as well and thus, he was not

eligible for premature release. Thus, his case was reconsidered

upon the inadvertent error being realised and the order dated

12.05.2022 was passed. It is averred in the reply that the

petitioner was released under a bonafide misinterpretation of the

order dated 28.03.2021.

Shri Anirudh Purohit, learned counsel representing the

petitioner, vehemently and fervently contended that the order

dated 12.05.2022 was passed in gross violation of the principles of

natural justice. He further submitted that the Superintendent,

Central Jail, Jodhpur had no jurisdiction to pass the said order and

hence, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.

Shri Anil Joshi, learned GA-cum-AAG vehemently and

fervently opposed this submissions advanced by the petitioner's

counsel. However, he too is not in a position to dispute the fact

that by the order dated 12.05.2022 (wherein it is stated that the

petitioner was granted premature release due to a bonafide

(3 of 3) [CRLW-267/2022]

mistake), the liberty of premature release earlier granted to the

petitioner was withdrawn, was passed without providing an

opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Shri Joshi submitted that

it was a bonafide error on part of the Superintendent, Central Jail,

Jodhpur and thus, neither any right of hearing was required to be

given nor any prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by the

subsequent order dated 12.05.2022.

We are of the firm view that as the order dated 12.05.2022

acts as a revocation of the earlier decision granting premature

release to the present petitioner from prison, it could not have

been passed without providing opportunity of hearing to the

petitioner.

Hence, the impugned order dated 12.05.2022 passed by the

Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur, which suffers from gross

violation of the principles of natural justice, is hereby quashed and

set aside. The matter is remitted to the State Government's Parole

Committee which shall hear the petitioner and pass a fresh

reasoned order in this regard within a period of two months from

today. Needless to say that in case, any adverse order is passed,

the petitioner shall be at liberty to challenge the same as per law.

The writ petition is allowed in these terms.

                                   (KULDEEP MATHUR),J                                     (SANDEEP MEHTA),J


                                    73-Tikam/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)