Ramesh Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 3754 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 523/2022 Ramesh Kumar S/o Shri Harishchandra, Aged About 46 Years, At Present Lodged In Central Jail Udaipur Through His Wife Smt. Kirti W/o Shri Ramesh Kumar Aged About 42 R/o 154 Near Narayan Vihar 200 Feet By-Pass Road Jaipur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Dept. Of Home Rajasthan Jaipur

2. The Director General (Jails), Jaipur

3. The Dist. Collector, Udaipur

4. The Supp., Central Jail Udaipur

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kalu Ram Bhati. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Joshi, G.A. - cum - AAG with Mr. Rajat Chhaparwal.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI Order 27/04/2023

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking

premature release/release on permanent parole.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that in

view of the fact that the petitioner has not so far attained the

eligibility for getting premature release, he does not want to press

the said relief.

3. However, he made submissions that the petitioner is entitled

to permanent parole and the rejection of his application by the

competent authority on 13.01.2023 (Annex.1) filed with the

rejoinder, for the reasons indicated therein, is not justified.

4. The Committee rejected the application of the petitioner for

permanent parole observing that when the petitioner was released

(2 of 2) [CRLW-523/2022]

on parole, he absconded and indulged in criminal activity and that

after he was rearrested, he has not availed any parole, therefore,

he was not entitled to permanent parole.

5. It is submitted that the criminal case, which was registered

against the petitioner during the period he was absconding, he has

been acquitted by the competent court, however, apparently, the

said judgment was not before the Committee. Further submissions

have been made that mere fact that the petitioner has not availed

any parole after rearrest cannot be a reason to deny grant of

permanent parole as laid down in Suraj Giri v. State of Rajasthan

& Ors. : 2010(4) RLW 3507 (Raj.).

6. Learned Govt. Advocate made submissions that as the

requisite material sought to be relied on by the petitioner was not

before the Parole Committee, the rejection of the petitioner's

application cannot be faulted.

7. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel

for the parties, we deem it appropriate and therefore order that

the Parole Committee in its next meeting shall reconsider the case

of the petitioner expeditiously keeping in view the fact that the

petitioner was acquitted by the competent criminal court in

relation to the case lodged against him during the period he was

absconding and also by taking into consideration the judgment in

the case of Suraj Giri (supra).

8. With the above directions, the petition filed by the petitioner

stands disposed of.

(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J (ARUN BHANSALI),J 31-Rmathur/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)