Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 755 (RAJ)

Balraj Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2012-03-27

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2012
Hon'ble CHAUHAN, J.—A letter has been received from Balraj Singh, a convicted prisoner of Central Jail, Sri Ganganagar, which has been treated as a letter petition by this Court. Subsequently, Mr. Kalu Ram has filed his power on behalf of the petitioner. 2. It is he case of the petitioner that initially he was convicted for offences under Sections 302/34, 341, 342 IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Camp Suratgarh, vide judgment dated 20.9.2003. Aggrieved by the said judgment, he had challenged the same before this Court. This Court, partly allowed the appeal filed by him, modified the conviction from one under Section 302 IPC, to one under Section 304 Part-I IPC, and reduced the sentence from life imprisonment to ten years. As on 8.5.2011, the petitioner had completed six years, five months, and two days. 3. Since he was eligible for being released prematurely under the Rajasthan Prisoners (Shortening of Sentence) Rules, 1958. He had filed a writ petition before this Court, registered as S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 8470/2010. The said writ petition was decided vide judgment dated 21.12.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner's case was considered by the Advisory Board on 23.2.2011. However, as the District Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar, the Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar, and the Superintendent of Central Jail had given adverse reports against the petitioner, his case for premature release was rejected by the Advisory Board. The recommendation of the Advisory Board was subsequently accepted by the State Government. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 4.3.2011 whereby his case has been rejected for premature release. 4. Mr. Kalu Ram Bhati, has contended that the petitioner's case has been rejected ostensibly on the grounds that his conduct within the jail was unsatisfactory, and while on bail he had allegedly committed an offence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, and the S.P. Sri Ganganagar had given a report against the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, the recent most report received from the Central Jail shows that the conduct of the petitioner in the jail is satisfactory. Therefore, one of the three grounds taken for rejecting the petitioner's case no longer exists. Secondly, that while the petitioner was granted the benefit of the second parole of thirty days, he had not created any law and order problem during his furlough. Hence, he should be released prematurely. 5. Therefore, one of the three grounds taken for rejecting the petitioner's case no longer exists. Secondly, that while the petitioner was granted the benefit of the second parole of thirty days, he had not created any law and order problem during his furlough. Hence, he should be released prematurely. 5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, has contended that even if, the petitioner's conduct in the jail has improved from unsatisfactory to being satisfactory, even then he is not entitled to be released prematurely. For, even today, a case under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act is pending against the petitioner. Moreover, according to the report of the S.P. Sri Ganganagar, in case, the petitioner were to be released prematurely, it would create law and order problem. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, a convicted prisoner is released prematurely only when he has reformed himself to the point that he can be brought back into the mainstream of the society as a contributory person. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the record produced before this Court. 7. A convicted prisoner is prematurely released only when he can be brought back into the society as peace loving, law abiding citizen. Considering the fact that while the petitioner was on bail, he has allegedly committed an offence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, considering the fact the S.P. Sri Ganganagar is still of the opinion that in case the petitioner were to be released prematurely, he would create a law and order problem, it cannot be held hat the petitioner has reformed himself to the point that he can be brought back safely into the society. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the Advisory Board and accepted by the State Government. Hence, this petition is devoid any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed.