Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1184 (RAJ)

Naresh Kumar v. The State of Rajasthan

2000-09-20

ARUN MADAN, G.L.GUPTA

body2000
JUDGMENT 1. - This is a habeas corpus petition u/Art. 226 of the Constitution of India by Naresh Kumar Shukla who is undergoing imprisonment for life in a case under section 302 IPC. In the petition, it is stated that the petitioner was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur, vide judgment dated 17.12.1986 and was sentenced to imprisonment for life and his appeal to the High Court as also the SLP to the Hon'ble Supreme Court have been dismissed. It is further stated that the petitioner has undergone imprisonment for about 16 years and that during the incarceration in the prison, his conduct and behaviour have been good. Stating that the petitioner has cleared the Post Graduation Examination while in prison, and no complaint was made against him during the period he remained on parole, the petitioner has prayed that he be released from jail. 2. In the reply, the case set up by the respondents is that though the Advisory Board had recommended the case of the petitioner for premature release yet keeping in view the reports of the S.P. (North), Jaipur City, Jaipur, and the District Magistrate, Jaipur, the State Government has not thought it proper to release the petitioner. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Dy. Government Advocate and have gone through the record of the case. The Rajasthan Prison (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 1958 (for short 'the Rules of 1958'), provides for premature release of the convicts. Rule 12 of the Rules of 1958, empowers the State Government to order the release of the prisons on consideration of the report of the Advisory Board. Rule 12 is reproduced hereunder: "12. Consideration by Government. - On receipt of the proceedings of the Advisory Board, and other relevant papers, the Government shall order release of prisoner in cases for which, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, it considers that the prisoner may be released without any danger to the society. In case of a prisoner sentenced by Court-Martial the Government shall forward its recommendation to the Government of India for necessary orders. 4. In case of a prisoner sentenced by Court-Martial the Government shall forward its recommendation to the Government of India for necessary orders. 4. The scheme of the Rules of 1958, indicates that the case of premature release is required to be considered by the Advisory Board which consists of Home Secretary to the Government, a Senior Judicial Officer, two non-official members and the Superintendent of Central Jail concerned. The Advisory Board after scrutinising the cases of the prisoners for their premature release on the basis of the material submitted to it, may recommend the premature release of a prisoner. Under R. 11 of the Rules, 1958, the Advisory Board may recommend the release of a prisoner prematurely conditionally or unconditionally. 5. A reading of R. 12 makes it clear that normally the Government should accept the recommendations of the Advisory Board in the matters of release of prisoners. The only circumstances in which the State Government can decline to order the premature release is where the release of the prisoner is likely to endanger the society. 6. In the instant case, as already stated, the Advisory Board on consideration of the entire material on record, which included the reports of the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police had recommended the case of the petitioner for his premature release. 'The order of the State Government (Annexure R- 3) indicates that the State Government had declined to release the prisoner on the grounds that nature of the offence was serious, the premature release may have adverse effect on the victim's family, and the reports of the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police were against the petitioner. It is significant to point out that the Advisory Board considers the matter of premature release after obtaining the reports of the jail authorities as also of the District Magistrate and the District Superintendent of Police. When the Advisory Board had recommended the case of the petitioner for premature release, it has to be presumed that the reports of the District Magistrate and the District Superintendent of Police had been considered, and as there was no adverse circumstance in those reports, the Advisory Board had recommended the case of the petitioner. When the Advisory Board had recommended the case of the petitioner for premature release, it has to be presumed that the reports of the District Magistrate and the District Superintendent of Police had been considered, and as there was no adverse circumstance in those reports, the Advisory Board had recommended the case of the petitioner. As to the grievous nature of the offence, it may be stated that every murder is cruel and therefore, only on the ground that an offence of murder had been committed, it may not be proper in each case to refuse the consideration of the premature release of a convict. 7. It seems that the State Government has not considered the matter keeping in view the various provisions of the Rules of 1958. The matter deserves to be reconsidered by the State Government. 8. Consequently, it is directed that the State Government shall consider the case of the petitioner afresh in the light of the observations made above. 9. With these observations, the habeas corpus petition stands disposed of.Writ disposed accordingly. *******