Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 837 (RAJ)

Mohd. Saleem v. State

2005-03-17

HARBANS LAL, V.K.BALI

body2005
Judgment V.K. Bali, J.-Prayer made in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to grant parole of 20 days to the petitioner under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisons (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958. 2. The bare minimum facts of the case reveal that the petitioner was involved in a case for offences under Sections 396, 397/149 IPC and was sentenced to Life Imprisonment. The order dated 11.08.2000 of conviction has since been affirmed in appeal. The petitioner’s case for regular parole was rejected by the District Parole Advisory Committee on 19.07.2004. 3. While claiming parole for 20 days, it has been pleaded and so urged by the Counsel for the petitioner that the conduct of the petitioner has throughout been good and that is the only requirement of the statute for grant of parole. 4. Pursuant to notice issued by this Court the respondent has entered defence and contested the cause of the petitioner. In the written statement filed by the respondent State it has been pleaded that the case of the petitioner for grant of parole was sent to District Magistrate, Jhunjhunu and the same was put up before the District Parole Advisory Committee on 19.07.2004. The reports of the concerned authorities including the S.P. were also called for. The S.P. and District Magistrate, Muradabad (UP) have not recommended the case of the petitioner for release on parole. The District Magistrate, Muradabad (UP) has mentioned in his report that the address mentioned/given by the petitioner in the application is wrong, he is not residing there, as such keeping in view the adverse report of the S.P. and District Magistrate, Muradabad (UP), District Parole Advisory Committee rejected the application of the petitioner. It has further been pleaded that the conduct of the petitioner in jail is not satisfactory as he was punished for jail punishment twice i.e., 17.07.2002 and 14.07.2004 and many times the petitioner willfully absented from Jail Udhyog Shala. 5. Confronted with the written statement filed by the respondent State particularly mentioning the punishments given to the petitioner twice i.e., 17.07.2002 and 14.07.2004, the learned Counsel contends that no material leading to punishment of the petitioner on two occasions has been laid before the Court and further that one punishment in any case pertains to a period about three years ago which should not have been taken into consideration. 6. 6. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and with their assistance examined the records of the case. 7. In our considered view the requirement of a convict having good conduct which alone entitles him to release on parole has not been made out in the present case. It is proved that the petitioner has since been punished twice so far for jail offences and therefore, it cannot be said that his conduct during the time he was lodged in the jail was good. This Court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not open, yet another inquiry with regard to factual position leading to punishment to the petitioner on two occasions and as mentioned above that is not the scope of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In so far as the second contention of the learned Counsel is concerned, even though, one of the punishments given to the petitioner may relate to 17.07.2002 but the other is of recent past i.e., 14.07.2004. From the records of the case we have further found that the petitioner was even found in possession of 5-6 gm. of ‘Charas’. There is no merit in this petition and we accordingly dismiss the same.