Mohammad Afaq S/O Shri Mohammad ... vs The Union Of India
2023 Latest Caselaw 1887 Raj/2

[2023/RJJP/001227]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                 D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 320/2022

Fazlur Rehman Sufi @ Shamim S/o Abdul Rehman Sufi, R/o 54/B
2nd Floor, Room No. 42, Hingwala Building, Meghraj Sethi Marg,
Mumbai, 400011 ( Maharashtra) At Present Confined In Central
Jail Jaipur, Rajasthan
Through His Wife:- Ashrafi Anisa Fazlur Rehman W/o Fazlur
Rehman Sufi, R/o 54/b 2Nd Floor, Room No. 42 Hingwala
Building Meghraj Sethi Marg, Mumbai, 400011 ( Maharashtra)
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary ( Home)
         Govt. Of Rajasthan
2.       The Superintendent Central Jail, Jaipur.
3.       Union Of India, Though Under Secretary, Mha, Govt. Of
         India
                                                                   ----Respondents

Connected With D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 40/2022 Dr. Jalees Ansari Son Of Late Shri Shafiullah, R/o Room No. 36, 2Nd Floor, Mominpura B.I.T. Chawl, M.S. Ansari Marg, Mumbai , Pin Code- 400011, Maharashtra, (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Ajmer), Rajasthan Through His Son Zaid Ansari S/o Md. Jalees Ansari R/o Room No. 36, 2Nd Floor, Mominpura, B.I.T. Chawl, M.S. Ansari Marg, Mumbai, Pin Code- 400011, Maharashtra.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.

2. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Ajmer.

3. Union Of India, Through The Office Of Additional Solicitor General Of India.

----Respondents D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 231/2022 Abrerehmat Ansari Son Of Shri Noor Mohammed Ansari, R/o Vill. Dhaorahra Post Digha, Distt. Khalilabad, Santkabir Nagar, P.s. Khaliabad, U.P. 272175 (Presently Lodged In Central Jail Jaipur),

[2023/RJJP/001227] (2 of 16) [CRLW-320/2022]

Rajasthan.

Through His Wife Ameequnisa Abrerehmat Ansari W/o Shri Abrerehmat Ansari R/o Village Dhaorahra, Post Digha District Khalilabad, Santkabir Nagar, P.s. Khaliabad, U.P. 272175

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary ( Home) Govt. Of Rajasthan.

2. The Superintendent Central Jail, Jaipur.

3. Union Of India Through Under Secretary, Mha, Govt. Of India, Representing By Asg

----Respondents D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 551/2022 Mohammad Afaq S/o Shri Mohammad Maqsood, R/o House No. 335/164, Mahmood Nagar Chok, Lucknow (U.P.), Present Address- 401/79, Baradari, Chaupatiya, Police Station Saadat Ganj, District Lucknow (U.P.), (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. The Union Of India, Through The Ministry Of Home Affairs, Govt. Of India, IS-II, Division/legal Cell 1, 2Nd Floor,, Dhyan Chand National Stadium, Near India Gate, New Delhi-110002

2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Home, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

3. Superintendent Central Jail, Jaipur (Raj.)

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mujahid Ahamad, Mr. Nishant Vyas, Mr. T.C. Swami, Mr. Farooq Ahamad For State : Mr. M.S. Singhvi, A.G. with Mr. Pranav Bhansali For Union of India : Mr. R.D. Rastogi, A.S.G. with Mr. Anand Sharma, C.S. Sinha, Mr. Vaibhav Jeswani

[2023/RJJP/001227] (3 of 16) [CRLW-320/2022]

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order Order reserved on :: 01/02/2023 Order pronounced on :: 09/02/2023 (Per Hon'ble Pankaj Bhandari)

1. The petitioners, who are convicted under the TADA Act

and whose conviction has been upheld uptil the Supreme Court,

have filed these parole applications. The petitioner - Fazlur

Rehman Sufi @ Shamim has challenged Rules 6(4), 11(3) & 16(2)

(c) of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021

(hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 2021") and the other

petitioners have simply filed the parole applications seeking

parole.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners

that the petitioners were earlier granted parole by the Apex Court

and some of the petitioners were thereafter granted parole by the

High Court placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court

in Asfaq Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.: (2017) 15 SCC 55. It

is argued that the Rules of 2021, which have been framed by the

State, are not in compliance with the directions given by the Apex

Court in Asfaq case (supra). It is also argued that the law laid

down by the Supreme Court becomes the law of the land and any

Rule, which is framed contrary to the law laid down by the

Supreme Court, is ultra-vires the Constitution. Learned counsel for

the petitioners has read over the judgment of Asfaq case.

3. Reliance is placed on the judgments in Mohammed

Amin Versus The State of Rajasthan & Ors.: W.P. (Crl.) No.158

of 2018, Mohammed Shamsuddin Versus State of Rajasthan &

Ors.: W.P. (Crl.) No.235 of 2018, Fazlur Rehman Safi @

[2023/RJJP/001227] (4 of 16) [CRLW-320/2022]

Shamim Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.: Criminal Appeal

No.340 of 2019, Abre Rehmat Ansari Versus State of Rajasthan

& Ors.: W.P. (Crl.) No.284 of 2018, Mohammad Afaq Khan

Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.: W.P. (Crl.) No.250 of 2018,

Mohd. Aijaz Akbar Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.: W.P. (Crl.)

No.186 of 2019, Mohammed Moin Faridulla Qureshi Versus State

of Maharashtra & Ors.: Criminal Writ Petition No.213 of 2009,

Mohammed Moin Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors.: Criminal

Writ Petition No.446 of 2018, Mohammed Moin Versus State of

Maharashtra & Ors.: Criminal Writ Petition No.33 of 2019,

Mohd. Eqbal Mohd. Hanif Shaikh Versus State of Maharashtra &

Ors.: Criminal Writ Petition No.310 of 2020, Manga @ Manga

Singh Versus State of Punjab & Ors.: CRWP No.4953 of 2020,

Mrs. T. Arputham Versus The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.: Writ

Petition No.8642 of 2020, Habib Ahmed Khan Versus State of

Rajasthan & Ors.: D.B. Criminal Writ Petition (Parole) No.700

of 2018, Pappu @ Salim Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.: D.B.

Civil Writ Petition No.16042 of 2017, Pappu @ Salim Versus

State of Rajasthan & Ors.: D.B. Criminal Writ Petition (Parole)

No.186 of 2019, Pappu @ Salim Versus State of Rajasthan &

Ors.: D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.102 of 2020, Daya Singh

Lathoriya Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.: D.B. Criminal Writ

Petition No.533 of 2020, Fazlur Rehman Sufi @ Shamim: D.B.

Criminal Writ Petition No.515/2020 & its connected petitions

and Mohd. Aejaz Akbar Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.: D.B.

Criminal Writ Petition No.438/2021 & its connected petitions.

Reliance is also placed on Hitesh @ Bavko Shivshankar Dave

[2023/RJJP/001227] (5 of 16) [CRLW-320/2022]

Versus State of Gujarat: Writ Petition (Criminal) No.467 of

2022 decided by the Apex Court on 24.01.2023.

4. It is argued by counsel for the petitioners that the

petitioners have earlier been given benefit of parole, they have

surrendered in due time and they are not involved in any other

offence. It is also argued that their conduct in jail is satisfactory

and there is no reason why they should be denied parole. It is

further argued that the basic purpose of parole is to ensure that

the convict gets an opportunity to reform himself, maintain his

social relations and develop a positive attitude towards life.

5. Learned Advocate General and learned Additional

Solicitor General have opposed the parole applications, more

particularly the challenge to Rules 6(4), 11(3) and 16(2)(c) of the

Rules of 2021. It is argued that the Rules can be set aside by the

Courts only on two grounds; first, if they are not within the

legislative competency of the State. Our attention is drawn

towards Schedule-VII- of Constitution wherein prisons fall under

the State list. It is argued that the other ground on which the

Rules can be set aside, is the same being ultra-vires the

Constitution or infringing the rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the

Constitution of India.

6. It is contended by the learned Advocate General that in

Asfaq judgment, it was observed by the Apex Court that the Rules

of Central Government made in the year 1955 are skeleton in

nature and therefore, the State should come up with appropriate

Rules. The Apex Court, however, while deciding Asfaq case

observed that certain conditions can be imposed by the State

while framing the Rules.

[2023/RJJP/001227] (6 of 16) [CRLW-320/2022]

7. It is argued that the petitioners are involved in terrorist

act of bomb blasts and any rule putting restrictions on parole for

terrorist acts, cannot be said to be ultra-vires the Constitution. It

is also contended that the State has all the rights to restrict the

movement of those involved in terrorist activities. It is further

contended that for those who are convicted under TADA Act, even

their sentence cannot be shortened. It is argued that the

challenged Rules cannot be said to be violating anyone's rights as

those involved in bomb blasts and terrorist acts cannot claim

parole as a right. It is also contended that the Rules of 2021 do

not prohibit or completely ban the grant of parole. In cases of

grave illness of the applicant or his spouse, parents or children,

the convict is entitled to avail parole.

8. A query was put by the Court as to why parole cannot

be granted in case of demise of the spouse, parent or children, to

which learned Additional Solicitor General contends that the Rules

have to be read harmoniously and if a convict is entitled to parole

on the ground of grave illness, it would imply that he would also

be entitled to parole in case of demise of spouse, parents or

children.

9. Learned Advocate General has placed reliance on Atbir

Versus State of NCT of Delhi: Criminal Appeal No.714 of 2022

decided by the Apex Court on 29.04.2022 wherein the Apex Court

has observed that if the convict is to undergo the sentence for

whole of his natural life, any cause or event may not give him any

right to claim parole. Learned Advocate General has also placed

reliance on The Home Secretary (Prison) & Ors. Versus H. Nilofer

Nisha: (2020) 14 SCC 161 wherein the Apex Court observed

[2023/RJJP/001227] (7 of 16) [CRLW-320/2022]

that "the grant of remission or parole is not a right vested with the

prisoner. It is a privilege available to the prisoner on fulfilling

certain conditions. This is a discretionary power which has to be

exercised by the authorities conferred with such powers under the

relevant rules/Regulations. The court cannot exercise these

powers though once the powers are exercised, the Court may hold

that the exercise of powers is not in accordance with rules."

10. With regard to the argument that the petitioners have

been earlier given parole by the Apex Court and later parole has

been granted by the High Court, it is argued that the Supreme

Court under Article 142 of Constitution may make such orders as

are necessary for doing complete justice in any case. It is argued

that such power is not available to the High Courts. Reliance in

this regard is placed on State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Surinder Kumar

& Ors. AIR 1992 SC 1593. It is also argued that if the Parole

Rules put restrictions on the grant of parole, then the High Court

cannot go beyond the Rules unless the High Court set aside the

Rules being ultra-vires the Constitution. It is further argued that

even if, the Supreme court has granted the parole, that was prior

to coming of the new Parole Rules. There being a specific bar in

the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958, the same

should be considered to be an order for doing complete justice

under the power conferred upon the Supreme Court under Article

142 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that there being a

specific bar under the new Parole Rules as well as old Parole

Rules, the judgment delivered in Hitesh (supra) also cannot be

applied to the facts of the present case, as even on the date of

conviction, as per the then prevalent old Parole Rules, a convict

[2023/RJJP/001227] (8 of 16) [CRLW-320/2022]

under the TADA Act was not entitled to any parole throughout his

life, except in case of grave illness of the convict, his parents,

children or spouse.

11. It is contended by the learned Advocate General that in

the present Parole Rules of 2021 also, in emergent cases

pertaining to grave illness, which is life threatening, a convict is

entitled to be released on parole. The illness may be of the convict

himself, his spouse, parents or children. It is argued that the State

has all the rights to put restrictions on release of a convict on

parole and the law cannot be said to be violative of Articles 14 or

21 of the Constitution of India.

12. We have considered the contentions and have gone

through the judgments referred to by the counsel for the parties.

13. We have to now analyse whether the Rules 6(4), 11(3)

& 16(2)(c) of Rules of 2021 are ultra-vires the Constitution or

whether they are contrary to the directions given by the Apex

Court in Asfaq case (supra).

14. Before dealing with the validity of the Rules of 2021, it

would be appropriate to quote the relevant Rules, the

constitutional validity of which are under challenge:-

Rule 6-Disposal of parole application:- (4). A person sentenced to imprisonment of an offence under any law relating to matter to which the executive power of the Union extends shall not entitled for any kind parole, except suspension of sentence under sub- rule (3) of rule 11 of these rules.

Rule 11-Emergent cases:-

(3) Where a petition for suspension of the execution of a sentence of imprisonment or for remission of the whole or part of a sentence of imprisonment is made

[2023/RJJP/001227] (9 of 16) [CRLW-320/2022]

by or on behalf of a person sentenced to imprisonment of an offence under any law relating to matter to which the executive power or the Union extends and the person sentenced to an imprisonment is in jail, the execution of the sentence shall be suspended and such person released on parole, not exceeding fifteen days, if the Government of the State in which such person is detained in jail is satisfied that the immediate release of such person on parole is rendered necessary by reason of any illness constituting a grave threat to the life of such person or of a parent, wife husband or child of such person. Such prisoner shall not entitled for any other kind parole under these rule.

Rule 16-Ineligibility for release:-

(2) The following categories of prisoners shall not be eligible for release on parole:-

(c) Prisoners convicted under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (Central Act No.37 of 1967).

The challenge to the validity of the Rules of 2021 on

the ground of competence is not sustainable for the very reason

that Schedule-VII of the Constitution of India provides for the

Union list i.e. list-I in which the Union can legislate; the State list

i.e. list-II, in which only State can legislate and the Concurrent list

i.e. list-III, in which both Union and State can legislate and the

power to make law pertaining to State list rests with the State

Government.

15. Clause-4 of list-II State list reads as under:-

"Prisons, reformatories, Borstal institutions and other institutions of a like nature, and persons detained therein; arrangements with other States for the use of prisons and other institutions."

[2023/RJJP/001227] (10 of 16) [CRLW-320/2022]

A bare perusal of Clause (4) of the State list, makes it

evident that State can legislate for persons and prisons detained

therein. The State is thus competent to frame rules in relation to

the prisoners who are confined in the prisons. The main argument

on which the validity of the Rules is challenged, is the judgment of

the Apex Court in Asfaq Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

(2017) 15 SCC 55. The main crux of the arguments is that the

judgment of the Apex Court being law, as laid down under Article

141 of Constitution would be binding on all Courts. Article 141 is

reproduced here as under:-

"The Law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India."

16. As to whether the judgment given in Asfaq Vs. State of

Rajasthan is a law declared by the Supreme Court is to be seen. It is

evident that Supreme Court in Asfaq's case (Supra) was dealing with

the right of prisoners to avail parole. The Apex Court therein was

dealing with a case of convicts convicted under the TADA Act. Para-26

of the judgment reads as under:-

"We find that the Rules of the Central Government, in this behalf, are of the year 1955, which are skeleton in nature. There is an imperative and immediate need for updating these Rules thereby including comprehensive provisions, in the light of the discussion contained above, incorporating the aforesaid and other principles so as to provide suitable guidelines to those who have to consider such applications for grant of parole. We are hopeful that this aspect shall be given due consideration at the appropriate level by the Government of India. For this purpose, a copy of this judgment may also be sent to the Ministry of Law & Justice, Government of India."

[2023/RJJP/001227] (11 of 16) [CRLW-320/2022]

The Apex Court thus directed the Union to update the Rules

and include comprehensive provisions and provide suitable

guidelines to those who have to consider such applications for

grant of parole. In pursuance of the directions of the Apex Court,

fresh Rules have been framed by the State of Rajasthan. It is

evident to note that the Apex Court did not direct the Union to

frame Rules in a particular fashion. The Apex Court itself had put a

rider that unless a person has been convicted for committing a

serious offence, the competent authority, while examining such

cases, can be well advised to have stricter standards in mind while

judging their cases on the parameters of good conduct, convict

being habitual offender or while judging, whether he could be

considered highly dangerous or prejudicial to the public peace and

tranquility etc. The Apex Court was thus conscious of the fact that

there may be certain offences and there may be certain persons

who are considered to be highly dangerous or prejudicial to the

public peace and tranquility and that is why it had itself put a rider

in the Asfaq's case.

17. The State of Rajasthan while promulgating Rule 6 (4) of

Rules of 2021 has provided that a person sentenced to

imprisonment of an offence under any law relating to matter to

which the executive power of the Union extends shall not be

entitled for any kind of parole, except suspension of sentence

under sub-rule (3) of Rule 11, which permits parole for convicts, if

it is rendered necessary by reason of any illness constituting a

grave threat to the life of such person or of parents, spouse or

children of such person. Rule 16(2)(c) also provides a ban on

[2023/RJJP/001227] (12 of 16) [CRLW-320/2022]

release on parole for prisoners convicted under the Unlawful

Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

18. The present is not a case under the Unlawful Activities

(Prevention) Act, 1967 and hence, this Court in the present case is

not inclined to enter into the question of constitutional validity of

Rule 16(2)(c) and this is left open to be dealt with at the relevant

time, if occasion so arises. It is evident that a person who is

convicted under the TADA Act, is not entitled to remission and

shortening of sentence and has to remain in jail till the end of

his/her natural life. Thus, restrictions on parole can be put in by

the State and the same cannot be said to be violative of Articles

14 and 21 of the Constitution for the very reason that certain

offenders are to be dealt with separately and in those involved in

bomb blasts and in terrorist activities cannot as a matter of right

claim parole, as such persons are to be dealt with under the

category of highly dangerous or prejudicial to the public peace and

tranquility.

19. In the Home Secretary (Prison) & Ors. Vs. H. Nilofer

Nisha (Supra), the Apex Court held that grant of remission or

parole is not a right vested with the prisoner. It is a privilege

available to the prisoner on fulfilling certain conditions and it is a

discretionary power which has to be exercised by the authorities,

conferred with such powers under the relevant Rules/Regulations.

It was also observed that the courts cannot exercise these powers,

though once they are exercised, the Court may hold that the

exercise of powers is not in accordance with Rules. Thus, parole as

such is not a right vested with the prisoners and the State has all

the powers to put reasonable restrictions and riders for prisoners

[2023/RJJP/001227] (13 of 16) [CRLW-320/2022]

convicted for offences against the Union and those falling in the

domain of the executive power of the Union.

20. The said Rules can be in no way said to be contrary to

the judgment of Apex Court in Asfaq Vs. State of Rajasthan

(Supra). The direction given in the Asfaq's case was only to the

effect that the Rules need to be framed, as such Rules of Central

Government, 1955 was skeleton in nature. Now the Rules have

been updated, the same being not violative of Articles 14 and 21

of the Constitution of India. The claim of the petitioner-Fazlur

Rehman Sufi @ Shamim for quashing the Rules 6 and 11(3) of

Rules, 2021 is without any basis and the prayer in this regard is

declined.

21. In the impugned orders passed in D.B. Criminal Writ

Petition Nos.320/2022 and 40/2022, the Authorities have

mentioned that "Rule No.4 (13) of the Maharashtra Prisons

(Bombay Parole and Furlough) Rules, 1959 and the Hon'ble High

Court of Bombay's judgment, dated 25.04.2018 in Cr. WP

No.1008/2018, wherein it is mentioned that prisoners convicted

under terrorist activities are not eligible for furlough and regular

parole."

22. A bare perusal of the above, reveals that the

Authorities have not applied their mind and have passed a

mechanical order without even ensuring the relevant provision

applicable. The present petitioners in D.B. Criminal Writ Petition

No.320/2022 and 40/2022 are in no way governed by the

Maharashtra Prisons (Bombay Parole and Furlough) Rules, 1959

and thus, the impugned orders passed in the above two writ

petitions are bad in law, as the Authorities have not applied their

[2023/RJJP/001227] (14 of 16) [CRLW-320/2022]

mind in passing the same. On this ground, the impugned orders

passed in D.B. Criminal Writ Petition Nos.320/2022 and 40/2022

deserves to be quashed and set aside.

23. Now coming to the prayer for grant of parole, it is not

in dispute that all the petitioners have remained in custody for a

period of more than 25 years. It is also not disputed that all have

availed the parole granted by the Apex Court and thereafter,

parole granted by the High Court and all the petitioners after

availing parole surrendered within due time. It is further not in

dispute that their jail record is satisfactory. In Asfaq's case

(supra), the Apex Court was dealing with an accused who was

convicted under the TADA Act and Apex Court held that the Rules

of Central Government, 1955 were skeleton in nature and

considering the custody period, granted parole to the convict in

that case. Though when the petition was decided, it was brought

to the notice of the Court that the custody period was less than

ten years and therefore, the parole was rejected. However,

immediately thereafter, an application was moved that the custody

period is more than twenty years and the parole was granted.

24. In the matter of all the petitioners, parole was granted

by the Apex Court. It is evident that considering the judgment of

the Apex Court in Asfaq's case, parole has been granted in bomb

blasts cases by different High Courts and parole has also been

granted by Division Bench of this Court to the petitioners. In

Hitesh @ Bavko Shivshankar Dave vs. State of Gujarat (Supra)

decided by the Apex Court, it has been held that the date on

which an accused is convicted is the relevant date for deciding the

application pertaining to shortening of sentence. In the case in

[2023/RJJP/001227] (15 of 16) [CRLW-320/2022]

hand, the petitioners were convicted way back and their conviction

was upheld by Apex Court much prior to the framing of the Rules

of 2021. Thus, their case would be governed by the Rules of

Central Government, 1955 and Rajasthan Prisoners Release on

Parole Rules, 1958 would not apply to the petitioners as there was

a clause in Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958,

that the Rules will not apply to the offences on which the

executive power of the Union extends. Since the Rules of Central

Government, 1955 were held to be skeleton in nature, the parole

granted by the Apex Court cannot be said to be an order passed

under Article 142 of the Constitution of India as the order was not

passed invoking Article 142 of Constitution to do complete justice,

rather the order was passed considering the Central Rules, then

prevalent as being skeleton in nature.

25. We are of the considered view that the case of the

petitioners would be governed by the Rules of Central

Government, 1955 and since under these Rules, parole has been

granted to the petitioners by the Apex Court as well as by the

High Court and they have surrendered before the Jail Authorities

within the stipulated time and also that they have remained in

custody for a period of more than 26 years, we deem it proper to

allow the parole applications in D.B. Criminal Writ Petition

Nos.320/2022, 40/2022, 231/2022 and 551/2022. However, in

D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 320/2022, the prayer for quashing

the Rules 6(4), 11(3) & 16(2)(c) of Rajasthan Prisoners Release

on Parole Rules, 2021 is rejected.

26. Consequently, the Writ Petition No.320/2022 is partly

allowed and Writ Petition Nos. 40/2022, 231/2022 and 551/2022

[2023/RJJP/001227] (16 of 16) [CRLW-320/2022]

are allowed. The order of recommendation of the Parole Advisory

Committee dated 04.04.2022, 10.09.2021, 04.04.2022 and

01.08.2022 are quashed. The Jail Authorities are directed to

release the petitioner-Fazlur Rehman Sufi @ Shamim, Abrerehmat

Ansari & Mohammad Afaq on third regular parole for a period of

40 days and petitioner-Jalees Ansari on second regular parole for

a period of 30 days on furnishing of their personal bonds of

Rs.50,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of

the Superintendent Central Jail, Jaipur with the stipulation that

they shall surrender themselves before the Jail Authorities on the

expiry of parole period and shall maintain peace and tranquility

during parole period.

27. In case of failure to surrender by stipulated date, the

Jail Authorities shall proceed in accordance with Law.

28. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Authorities as

well as the petitioners through Jail Authorities for compliance.

                                   (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J                                         (PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

                                   Chandan/









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)