Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2068 (RAJ)

Rakesh @ Rodia v. State of Rajasthan

2012-10-03

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN II

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. 1. Instant petition for parole has come up upon petition filed by petitioner Rakesh @ Rodia who is undergoing sentence of imprisonment in the Central Jail, Bikaner for commission of offences under Sections 302, 395 and 396, I.P.C. The request of the petitioner convict for granting parole is that he is in custody since last 7 years and 4 months and his conduct is good, therefore, his case may be considered for granting parole for 40 days because it is his first application. 2. After issuing notice to the Addl. Government Advocate, a reply has been filed by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Bikaner along with Annex. R-1, the decision of the District Parole Committee, Sriganganagar, in which, the case of the petitioner was considered for granting parole but it is rejected. 3. After perusing the reply, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court directed the Addl. Government Advocate to make available the adverse remarks made by the Superintendent of Police, Sriganganagar and Assistant Director, Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, Sriganganagar. 4. Learned Addl. Government Advocate filed report of the Superintendent of Police, Sriganganagar dated 20.7.2011, so also, Assistant Director, Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, Sriganganagar dated 19.8.2011, in which, it is observed that some criminal cases were registered against the petitioner, therefore, it is not proper to grant him parole. 5. After hearing learned Addl. 4. Learned Addl. Government Advocate filed report of the Superintendent of Police, Sriganganagar dated 20.7.2011, so also, Assistant Director, Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, Sriganganagar dated 19.8.2011, in which, it is observed that some criminal cases were registered against the petitioner, therefore, it is not proper to grant him parole. 5. After hearing learned Addl. Government Advocate, we have perused the order of the District Parole Committee, in which, following reasons were given for not granting parole to the petitioner vide order dated 28.6.2012 : " cUnh jkds'k mQZ jksfM;k iq= Jh Jo.k dqekj gky dsUnzh; dkjkx'g] chdkusj ds izdj.k esa ftyk iqfyl v/kh{kd] Jhxaxkuxj ,ao lgk;d funs'kd lkekftd U;k; ,oa vf/kdkfjrk foHkkx] Jhxaxkuxj us viuh fjiksVZ esa vafdr fd;k gS fd cUnh ds fo:) eq0 ua0 37@05/kkjk 396] 395] 302 Hkk0n0la0 iqfyl Fkkuk ihyhcaxk esa ntZ gqvk ftlesa cUnh vkthou dkjkokl dh ltk Hkqxr jgk gSA iSjksy ij vkus eqLrfel ikVhZ ij foifjr izHkko iMsxkA cUnh Lo;a dks eqLrfxl ikVhZ ls [krjk gS rFkk lekt ,oa lkekftd 'kkafr ij foifjr izHkko iMs+xkA nkSjkus tkap ck;kukr ik;k x;k fd cUnh ds iSjksy ij vkus ls [krjk gks ldrk gSA cUnh us f'koukjk;.k nqdkunkj fd fnu ngkM+s xksyh ekjdj gR;k dh gS tks xaHkhj vijk/k gSA cUnh ds f[kykQ vU; xaHkhj izdj.k iathc) gSA cUnh iqfyl Fkkuk lwjrx<+ dk ,p0,l0 gSA bl izdj.k iSjksy Lohd'r fd;s tkus dh vuq'kalj ugha dh gSA vr% mDr dkj.k dks n'f"Vxr j[krs gq, izdj.k vLohd'r fd;k tkrk gSA " 6. We have also perused the report of the Superintendent of Police, Sriganganagar and report of the Assistant Director, Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, Sriganganagar. 7. In our opinion, admittedly the petitioner is in judicial custody for last 7 years and 4 months and, as per reports, during the period of judicial custody the conduct of the petitioner-convict is not bad as per the reply. So also, for last more than 7 years no adverse remark is reported against the petitioner. Therefore, in our opinion, the District Parole Committee has committed an while not granting parole to the petitioner. 8. So also, for last more than 7 years no adverse remark is reported against the petitioner. Therefore, in our opinion, the District Parole Committee has committed an while not granting parole to the petitioner. 8. In view of above, we deem it appropriate to grant 40 days parole to the petitioner from the date of his actual release provided the petitioner furnishes a personal bond in the stun of 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Superintendent of Central Jail, Bikaner with further direction that he shall s render before the Superintendent of Central Jail, Bikaner upon completion of period of 40 days from the date of his actual release.Petition allowed. *******