Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vishal vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 24 May, 2023
Bench: Arun Bhansali, Rajendra Prakash Soni
[2023/RJJD/017007] (1 of 4) [CRLW-617/2023]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 617/2023
Vishal S/o Shri Dilip Jain, Aged About 33 Years, At Present
Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur Through His Father Dilip Jain S/o
Shri Bhanwarlal Ji, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Shukadiyanagar,
P.s. Nathdwara, District Rajsamand.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Department Of Home, Jaipur.
2. The District Collector, Rajsamand.
3. The Superintendent, 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
24/05/2023
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the
order dated 27.02.2023 (Annex.2), whereby his prayer for release
on first parole of twenty days has been rejected.
2. It is, inter-alia, indicated in the petition that by the judgment
dated 23.05.2017, the petitioner was convicted for the offence
under Sections 5/6, 8 POCSO Act and was sentenced to life
imprisonment by the Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases,
Rajsamand.
3. When the first parole was refused to the petitioner, he filed
D.B Criminal Writ Petition No.412/2022, which came to be decided
on 14.12.2021 requiring the respondents to decide the case of the
petitioner under the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules,
1958 ('the Rules of 1958'), as his application was filed before
[2023/RJJD/017007] (2 of 4) [CRLW-617/2023]
coming into force of Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules,
2021 ('the Rules of 2021').
4. On reconsideration, by the impugned order dated
27.02.2023 (Annex.2), the application has been rejected, inter-
alia, observing that the petitioner was involved in a heinous
offence and in case, he is released on parole, same would have
bad effect on the complainant and that in the village, the people
are against him.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the
order dated 27.02.2023 rejecting the application for first parole of
the petitioner is not justified keeping in view the purpose of the
Rules, wherein an opportunity is required to be granted to the
convict for getting back into the main stream.
6. Further submissions have been made that though the reports
of the Social Welfare Department was in favour of the petitioner
and his conduct in the jail was reported to be satisfactory,
rejection without any specific reason, is not justified and
therefore, the same be granted.
7. Learned Govt. Advocate made submissions that the offence,
for which the petitioner has been convicted, is of most heinous
nature, wherein he has been convicted of wrong doing with a two
year old girl child.
8. Further submissions have been made that the order
impugned has recorded sufficient reasons for rejection of the
application, which does not call for any interference. However, it
was not denied that the conduct of the petitioner in jail has been
satisfactory and the Social Welfare Department has recommended
the grant of parole to the petitioner.
[2023/RJJD/017007] (3 of 4) [CRLW-617/2023]
9. We have considered the submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on
record.
10. It is no doubt true that the petitioner has been convicted of
an offence of heinous nature, however, a bare look at the
provisions of the Rules of 1958, in the category of cases, for which
there is ineligibility for release on parole, the provisions, under
which the petitioner has been convicted does not find mention.
Though, the said provisions have now been included by the Rules
of 2021, however, as the petitioner is to be governed by the Rules
of 1958, the provisions of the Rules of 2021 would not come in
way for grant of parole.
11. Further, a bare look at the order impugned clearly reveals
that a detailed report was produced by the Prison Welfare Officer,
regarding the social status including the fact that the neighbours
of the petitioner had no objection and that complainant's family
was not residing at the place of petitioner's residence, there was
no likelihood of any conflict, however, the District Magistrate
without indicating anything further except for noticing the various
reports, has rejected the application, which looking to the spirit of
the Rules for grant of parole, cannot be said to be justified.
12. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The recommendation
drawn by the District Parole Advisory Committee in its meeting
dated 27.02.2023 (Annex.2) qua the petitioner is quashed, and it
is ordered that the petitioner shall be released on first parole of
twenty days, upon his furnishing 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, Udaipur on the
[2023/RJJD/017007] (4 of 4) [CRLW-617/2023]
usual terms and conditions. The Superintendent, Central Jail,
Udaipur 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.
(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J (ARUN BHANSALI),J
12-Rmathur/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
