Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Lala Alias Lalshankar Alias Jigar vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 19 August, 2025
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2025:RJ-JD:36954-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1264/2025
Lala Alias Lalshankar Alias Jigar S/o Gattu Lal, Aged About 30
Years, At Present Lodged In Central Jail Udaipur through his
father Shri Gattu Lal S/o Somaji Age About 55 Years R/o village
Petfala Dadiya P. S. Dambola District Dungarpur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, Through PP
2. The Director General (Jails), Jaipur
3. The District Collector, Dungarpur
4. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Udaipur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kalu Ram Bhati
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, GA Cum AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA
Order
19/08/2025
1. By way of present petition preferred under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order
dated 08.04.2025 passed by the State Government whereby
petitioner's application for grant of permanent parole has been
rejected by the State Government while observing thus :-
"cUnh }kjk e`R;qn.M dh /kkjk 376Mh vkbZ-ih-lh- esa fnukad 13-02-2025 rd 11
o"kZ 03 ekg 03 fnol ltk e; fopkjk/khu vof/k ds ¼fcuk ifjgkj½ Hkqxrh xbZ
gSA tcfd jktLFkku dSnh dkjkokl dkyhu vodk'k fu;e] 1958 ds rgr
e`R;qn.M dh /kkjk esa 14 o"kZ e; fopkjk/khu vof/k ds ¼fcuk ifjgkj½ ltk
Hkqxrh tkuk vko';d gSA
vr% mDr rF;ksa dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, lfefr loZlEefr ls nf.Mr canh ykyk
mQZ yky'kadj mQZ thxj iq= xVw mQZ xVwyky dks jktLFkku dSnh dkjkokl
dkyhu vodk'k fu;e] 1958 ds rgr LFkkbZ iSjksy ij fjgk ugha djus dh
vuq'ka"kk dh gSA jkT; ljdkj jkT; Lrjh; iSjksy lfefr dh vfHk'ka"kk ls
lger gSA vr% canh dks LFkkbZ iSjksy ij fjgk ugha djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k
gSA"
[2025:RJ-JD:36954-DB] (2 of 3) [CRLW-1264/2025]
2. Mr. Bhati, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
petitioner's case is squarely covered by the judgment dated
14.12.2023 passed by this Court in D.B. Criminal Writ Petition
No.1828/2023 (Heeralal Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.).
3. Apprising the Court about the facts, learned counsel
submitted that the applicant was convicted for the offence under
Section 376 (D) of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for life till remainder of his life.
4. He submitted that if the relevant provision of the Rajasthan
Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (hereinafter refers to
the Rules of 1958) more particularly, proviso to Rule 9 is taken
into account, the same puts an embargo on consideration of an
application for grant of permanent parole before completion of 14
years only in cases where the offence, for which an applicant has
been convicted is punishable with death penalty.
5. Learned counsel argued that since the applicant was
convicted for the offence under section 376 (D) of the Indian
Penal Code for which death penalty has not been provided, his
application for grant of permanent parole could not have been
rejected by the State Government.
6. Upon considering the minutes of the meeting of the State
Government, we had some doubt about the petitioner's
conviction, since reference therein was made to "death penalty".
7. Learned Government Advocate cum Additional Advocate
General placed before us a copy of the judgment and order dated
24.04.2015 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge,
Dungarpur. On going through the same, we are satisfied that the
[2025:RJ-JD:36954-DB] (3 of 3) [CRLW-1264/2025]
petitioner was not convicted for an offence for which death
penalty has been prescribed.
8. Proviso to Rule 9 reads as under:-
"9. Parole period - ... ... ...
[Provided the cases of prisoners who have been
sentenced to imprisonment for life, for an offence for which
death penalty is one of the punishments provided by law or
who have been sentenced to death but this sentence has
been commuted under section 433 of Code of Criminal
Procedure into one of life imprisonment shall not be placed
before the State Committee for permanent release on
parole unless he has served 14 years of imprisonment
excluding remission but including the period of detention
passed during enquiry, investigation or trial. Such prisoners
may be released on parole for 40 days every year for the
remaining period of their sentence subject to the conditions
stated above.]
[9A. In emergent cases the Superintendent of Jail
shall grant parole upto a period of 7 days only subject to
confirmation by the Inspector General of Prisons and for a
period of not more than 15 days by the Inspector General
of Prisons.]"
9. In view of the unambiguous provision contained in Proviso to
Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958 and in light of the judgment dated
14.12.2023 passed by this Court in the case of Heeralal (supra),
the present petition is allowed. The order dated 08.04.2025
passed by the State Government qua the petitioner is hereby
quashed and set aside.
10. Accordingly, the matter is restored to the State Government,
which shall consider petitioner's application afresh. In case the
petitioner is otherwise found entitled for grant of permanent
parole, his case shall be decided in accordance with law within a
period of eight weeks, from today.
(SANGEETA SHARMA),J (DINESH MEHTA),J
8-amit/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
