Ajay Sharma @ Mitthu @ Pramendra ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 901 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

            D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 56/2023

Ajay Sharma @ Mitthu @ Pramendra S/o Shr5 Babu Lal, Aged

About 37 Years, R/o Jhajhad, Police Station Nawalgarh, District

Jhunjhunu (Raj.). (At Present In Open Air Camp Sanganer

Jaipur).
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.      State   Of   Rajasthan,        Through         The       Secretary   Home,

        Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.      The District Parole Advisory Committee, Through Its

        Chairman, District Magistrate, Jaipur (Raj.)
3.      Superintendent Central Jail, Jaipur.

                                                                  ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishram Prajapati For Respondent(s) : Mr. Javed Choudhary, P.P.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

Judgment / Order

27/01/2023

Heard.

The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the

condition with regard to furnishing of surety of Rs.50,000/- in the

matter of grant of parole.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

petitioner is a person of meager means. He would submit that the

petitioner does not own immovable property and, therefore, it is

not possible for him to arrange for surety to the tune of

(2 of 3) [CRLW-56/2023]

Rs.50,000/-. He would submit that he is prepared to furnish

personal bond of Rs.50,000/-. It is also submitted that in the past

also, the petitioner was granted parole on seven occasions and he

never violated the terms and conditions of parole and invariably

on every occasion after completion of the period of parole, he

surrendered.

State counsel would submit that this Court has directed the

State to verify the financial status of the petitioner and it is found

that the father of the petitioner is a retired employee of the

transport department and the petitioner's brother is engaged in

private job at Ahmadabad. This report states that earlier also, the

petitioner was granted parole on more than seven occasions and

after completion of the parole period, he was remitted for

undergoing the remaining period of sentence.

The report submitted before the Court does not show that

the petitioner has any immovable property or any other property,

which could be furnished by way of surety of Rs.50,000/-. We

further find that the petitioner has undergone fourteen years of

jail sentence by now, including the period of remission. More over,

we find that in the past, the petitioner has not misused liberty,

though, he was released on parole for more than seven to eight

occasions. Therefore, taking into consideration the entire

circumstances of the cases, we are inclined to modify the

conditions of parole only to the extent that the petitioner need not

furnish surety of Rs.50,000/-. He, however, would be required to

furnish personal bond of Rs.50,000/-. On furnishing of personal

bond of Rs.50,000/-, without insisting on furnishing of surety, the

(3 of 3) [CRLW-56/2023]

petitioner shall be released on parole on the terms and conditions

contained therein.

Accordingly, Criminal Writ Petition is allowed.

( GANESH RAM MEENA),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J

ARTI SHARMA /4

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)