Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhawani Singh vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 23 September, 2025
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:42463-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1725/2025
Bhawani Singh S/o Shri Ghewar Singh, Aged About 49 Years, At
Present Lodged In Central Jail, Jodhpur, Through His Wife Smt.
Saroj Kanwar, W/o Shri Bhawani Singh, Age About 46 Years, R/o
Behind Rambhawan Bagarberi Kila Road, P.s. Nagori Gate,
District Jodhpur...
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Of Home Dept.
Jaipur.
2. The Director General, Jail Jaipur
3. The District Collector, Jodhpur.
4. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kalu Ram Bhati
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Singh Kumpawat for
Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI
Order
23/09/2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present criminal writ petition has been filed by the
convict petitioner for quashing of the order dated 30.05.2025
passed by the State Level Parole Committee and for release of the
petitioner on permanent parole.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has completed more than 10 years of incarceration after having
being convicted under Section 376 (2) of IPC and Section, 3/4 of
the POCSO Act to undergo life imprisonment for remainder of his
(Uploaded on 24/09/2025 at 04:54:25 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42463-DB] (2 of 4) [CRLW-1725/2025]
life vide judgment dated 14.09.2017 passed by the Special Judge
POCSO Act Cases, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.69/2017. Learned
counsel submits that the conduct of the petitioner had been good
after he was released on parole on three occasions.
4. Learned counsel further submits that the punishment for the
offences in the present case in which the petitioner has been
convicted is not a death penalty and, therefore, his case for
release on permanent parole should have been considered as per
Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Bail) Rules, 1958.
He submits that only consideration while rejecting the case of the
petitioner for release on permanent parole is that the order of
conviction passed in the present case is to undergo a life
imprisonment for remainder of his life and, therefore, the ground
on which the application has been rejected is not sustainable. He,
therefore, prays that the petitioner may be released on permanent
parole.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
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 Rajasthan & Ors.) and
the Judgment dated 19.08.2025 passed by this Court in D.B.
Criminal Writ Petition No.1264/2025 (Lala Alias Lalshankar
Alias Jigar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.).
6. Learned Public Prosecutor while opposing the submissions
made by the counsel for the petitioner submits that the State
Level Parole Committee has considered the case of the petitioner
and has passed a detailed order while rejecting the application for
(Uploaded on 24/09/2025 at 04:54:25 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42463-DB] (3 of 4) [CRLW-1725/2025]
release on permanent parole and, therefore, no interference is
warranted.
7. We have considered the submissions made before this Court
and we have gone through the relevant record of the case
including the order dated 30.05.2025.
8. The petitioner was convicted for the offcence punishable
under Section 376 (झ) (ठ) (2) of the IPC and under Section 3/4 of
the POCSO Act vide judgment dated 14.09.2017. The sentence
awarded in the present case is life imprisonment for remainder of
his life. As per nominal roll annexed with the reply to the writ
petition, the petitioner has undergone a sentence of 11 years 9
months and 3 days.
9. The Proviso to Rule 9 governing the consideration for release
on permanent parole reads as under:-
"[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.]"
10. A perusal of the Rule clearly shows that a person is entitled
for consideration for release on permanent parole, if he has not
(Uploaded on 24/09/2025 at 04:54:25 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42463-DB] (4 of 4) [CRLW-1725/2025]
been sentenced to imprisonment for life, for an offence for which
death penalty is one of the punishment provided by law or who
has been sentenced to death, but his sentence has been
commuted under Section 433 of the CrPC into one of life
imprisonment. Even in those cases, the case can be considered, if
a person has served imprisonment for 14 years excluding
remission.
11. In the present case, since the sentence awarded is life
imprisonment for remainder of life and not the death penalty,
therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, consideration
made by parole committee for rejecting the case of the present
petitioner for release on permanent parole is not justified.
12. In view of the discussions made above, the present criminal
writ petition merit acceptance and the same is allowed and the
order dated 30.05.2025 as well as the minutes of the meeting qua
the petitioner are quashed and set aside and the matter is
remanded back to the State Level Parole Committee for
reconsidering the same within a period of eight weeks.
(ANUROOP SINGHI),J (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
14-nitin/-
(Uploaded on 24/09/2025 at 04:54:25 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
