Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 369 (RAJ)

Vilayat Khan v. State of Rajasthan

2012-02-09

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - A letter has been sent by Vilayat Khan, a convict prisoner, incarcerated in Central Jail, Sri Ganganagar. The same has been treated as a letter petition. Vide order dated 10.01.2012, this Court had appointed Miss. Anju Chouhan as Amicus Curiae to argue the petition on behalf of Vilayat Khan. 2. Miss. Chouhan has contended that although the petitioner was eligible for being released on his first parole of twenty days, his case has been rejected vide order dated 15.11.2011 ostensibly on the ground that the Superintendent of Police and the Social Welfare Officer hadgiven adverse reports against him. According to her, the report given by the Superintendent of Police has been accepted in toto. Moreover, the report given by the Social Welfare Officer is an incorrect one. According to the report, the petitioner has been convicted for offence under Section 304B Indian Penal Code and sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment. However, in fact, the petitioner has been convicted for offence under Section 306 Indian Penal Code and not under Section 304B Indian Penal Code. Therefore, relying upon a wrong report, the District Advisory Committee has rejected the petitioner's case for grant of parole. Lastly, that the Committee has not bothered to see the jail record. A bare perusal of the jail record would have revealed the fact that the petitioner was convicted for offence under Section 306 Indian Penal Code, and not under Section 304B Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the order dated 15.11.2011 suffers from non-application of mind. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has contended that according to the police report, since the petitioner allegedly abated suicide of his wife, an animosity continues to exist between the families. Considering the animosity, the police had recommended that the petitioner should not be released on parole. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 15.11.2011. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the Committee had ipse dixit accepted the report of the police. In catena of cases, this Court has held that the Committee should not accept the ipse dixit report of the police. There is no evidence on record to show that the animosity continues to exist between the two families. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the Committee had ipse dixit accepted the report of the police. In catena of cases, this Court has held that the Committee should not accept the ipse dixit report of the police. There is no evidence on record to show that the animosity continues to exist between the two families. Moreover, a written report has been submitted by the Social Welfare Officer, wherein he had claimed that the petitioner had been convicted for offence under Section 304B Indian Penal Code. However, the facts remains that the petitioner has been convicted for offence under Section 306 Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the decision dated 15.11.2011 is based on the incorrect report submitted by the Social Welfare Officer. Moreover, the said decision suffers from the vice of nonapplication of mind as it seems that the Committee has not considered the jail record of the petitioner wherefrom the offence for which he is serving his sentence would be very obvious. 4. Therefore, while quashing the order dated 15.11.2011 qua the petitioner, this Court direct that the petitioner be released on his first parole of twenty days provided he submits a bail bond of Rs. 30,000/- and two sureties of the same amount to the satisfaction of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Sri Ganganagar. The petitioner is directed to maintain peace and tranquility during the period of furlough, and to report back to the Central Jail, Sri Ganganagar upon completion of twentieth day of his parole. 5. The petition is, hereby, allowed.Petition Allowed. *******