Kishan Choudhary vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5160 Raj

[2023/RJJD/016979] (1 of 4) [CRLW-526/2022]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 526/2022 Kishan Choudhary S/o Late Shri Heera Ram, Aged About 39 Years, At Present Lodged In Central Jail Jodhpur Through His Nephew Shri Jitendra Choudhary S/o Shri Teja Ram Aged About 23 Years R/o Vill. Khari Khurd Ps Karwad Tehsil Bavri Dist. Jodhpur

----Petitioner Versus

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

2. The Distt. Collector, Jodhpur

3. The Superintendent, Central Jail Jodhpur

----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 24/05/2023

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking parole

of seven days under Rule 18(2) of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release

on Parole Rules, 1958 ('the Rules of 1958').

2. Submissions have been made that the petitioner was

convicted for the offence under Sections 304B & 498A IPC with life

imprisonment on 24.08.2010 and the appeal is pending.

3. The petitioner is eligible for seven days' parole under the

Rules of 1958, however, the application made by the petitioner in

this regard was earlier rejected on 24.02.2021, which was

challenged by the petitioner by filing D.B. Criminal Writ Petition

No.175/2021, wherein the Division Bench on 12.07.2021, though

rejected the petition, granted liberty to the petitioner to reapply

for parole after one year.

[2023/RJJD/016979] (2 of 4) [CRLW-526/2022]

3. When the petitioner reapplied for grant of parole for seven

days, again by order dated 28.11.2022 (Annex.2), the application

has been rejected by the District Magistrate, inter-alia, observing

that in view of the provisions of Rule 16(2) of the Rajasthan

Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021 ('the Rules of 2021') as

the petitioner has not earned remission to the extent of 50% of

his sentence, is not entitled to be released on parole and as on the

earlier occasion, when the petitioner was released on parole under

the Rules of 1958, he remained absconding for over five years and

after much efforts, he was again apprehended and based on the

said reason, the application has been rejected.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that

rejection of the application under the Rules of 2021 is not

justified, as the said Rules are not applicable, inasmuch as, as the

petitioner has been convicted before the Rules of 2021 come into

force, the Rules of 1958 would apply.

5. Reliance has been placed on Laxman Singh v. State of

Rajasthan & Ors. : D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.180/2012,

decided on 27.03.2023.

6. Further submissions have been made only because on the

earlier occasion, the petitioner remained absconding, cannot be a

reason to refuse grant of parole, as the conduct of the petitioner

after he was apprehended, is satisfactory and a recommendation

in this regard has been made by the Prison Welfare Officer of the

Social Welfare Department.

7. Learned Govt. Advocate vehemently opposed the

submissions. It was submitted that though under the Rules of

1958, the petitioner may be entitled for grant of parole, however

[2023/RJJD/016979] (3 of 4) [CRLW-526/2022]

looking to his previous conduct, wherein he has remained

absconded for over five years and much efforts were required to

apprehend him under the supervision of this Court, wherein he

was rearrested from Gujarat and in case, he is released again,

there is likelihood of his absconding.

8. Submissions have also been made that when the petitioner

moved 4th suspension of sentence application in the appeal, for the

period the petitioner was absconding, for the efforts made by the

police the estimate of expenses was called by the Court, wherein

it was indicated that a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was spent by the

department in re-apprehending the petitioner and therefore, the

petition deserves dismissal.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the

petitioner is prepared to deposit a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with the

Superintendent of Police, in case, he is granted parole for seven

days and on his surrender on 7th day on completion of period of

parole, the amount be refunded back to him. In case of any failure

/ default, the amount be forfeited.

10. We have considered the submissions made by learned

counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on

record.

11. In so far as, the rejection by the respondents based on the

Rules of 2021 is concerned, in view of the judgment of this Court

in the case of Laxman Singh (supra), the said rejection is not

justified.

12. Coming to the previous conduct of the petitioner, admittedly,

he has remained absconding for over five years and after much

efforts, he has been re-apprehended by the respondents, however,

[2023/RJJD/016979] (4 of 4) [CRLW-526/2022]

in view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the

petitioner regarding the willingness of the petitioner in depositing

a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on being released on parole, which

amount be returned back to him on surrender on completion of

period of parole, we deem it appropriate that the petitioner be

granted parole for a period of seven days on his depositing a sum

of Rs.2,00,000/- with the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur.

13. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The recommendation

drawn by the District Parole Advisory Committee vide its order

dated 28.11.2022 (Annex.2) qua the petitioner is quashed, and it

is ordered that on depositing a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with the

Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur, the petitioner shall be

released on parole of seven days, it would also be required of him

to furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two

sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the

Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur on the usual terms and

conditions. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur shall be at

liberty to impose other adequate and reasonable conditions to

ensure return of the convict to the custody after availing the

parole. The term of parole shall be computed from the date of his

actual release.

14. On the petitioner surrendering on the date to be fixed by the

Superintendent, the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- deposited by the

petitioner for being released on parole, be refunded back to the

petitioner. In case of any failure / default, the amount shall stand

forfeited.

(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J (ARUN BHANSALI),J 11-Rmathur/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)