Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 194 (RAJ)

Hakra v. State of Rajasthan

2005-01-20

DINESH MAHESHWARI, RAJESH BALIA

body2005
Judgment Dinesh Maheshwari, J.-The Court has directed by way of interim directions on 211.2004 to the State to consider the case of the petitioner for premature release as he has already undergone a sentence of 16 years. 2. On 7.1.2005, the Court found that certain papers have been filed without filing a proper reply. The Court ask for explanation from the Jail Department and also from the Home Department. The Court has also directed to issue notice to the Secretaries, Incharge of Jail Department and Home Department. Thereafter, the reply has been submitted on 17.1.2005 pointing out that as per the record, the period of 16 years is by inclusion of the period of remission. If the remission period is excluded, the actual period for which the petitioner has undergone the sentence is only 13 years, 4 months and 25 days as on 211.2004 and by adding further period in the reply, it has been stated that as on 11.2005, the actual period of sentence undergone by the petitioner is only 13 years, 6 months and 18 days, whereas, the Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 envisages that for considering the case of permanent parole where the offence for which a person has been sentenced to life imprisonment is punishable with death penalty and his case shall not be placed before the State Committee for permanent release on parole unless he has served 14 years of imprisonment excluding the period of remission. The petitioners case for permanent release on parole excluding the period of remission is not covered. The petitioner has been sentenced under Sec. 302 IPC which is an offence punishable with death penalty. 3. In view of the facts coming from the record, it is apparent that the consideration of the petitioners case for permanent parole is premature until he undergoes 14 years imprisonment excluding remission. 4. However, so far the application which was received from Jail is for availing temporary release on parole which was granted by this Court on 26.3.2003 which the petitioner could not avail because of non-furnishing of the necessary bonds. He may now be released on parole on furnishing suitable bonds. 4. However, so far the application which was received from Jail is for availing temporary release on parole which was granted by this Court on 26.3.2003 which the petitioner could not avail because of non-furnishing of the necessary bonds. He may now be released on parole on furnishing suitable bonds. This application, however, in our opinion deserves to be allowed and we direct that the petitioner may even now be released in pursuance of the order dated 26.3.2003 on such and proper conditions as may be determined by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Udaipur to his satisfaction. He will also give a date for his surrender. A copy of this order may be sent to the convict. 5. The petition is accordingly disposed of . The notices ordered in pursuance of the order dated 07.01.2005 are discharged.