Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1730 (RAJ)

Karna Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2013-09-26

BANWARI LAL SHARMA, GOVIND MATHUR

body2013
JUDGMENT A letter addressed by convict prisoner with a prayer for grant of permanent parole as per the provisions of Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 [hereinafter referred as the Rules of 1958] has been treated as petition for writ. 2. The factual matrix necessary to be noticed are that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge [Fast Track], Sirohi by the judgment dated 18.04.2003 convicted the petitioner, for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. He was sentenced to undergo life term imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/-. The conviction recorded has already been affirmed by this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 3. The convict-prisoner has already completed the term of sentence for a period of 17 years, 9 months and 2 days as on 31.08.2013 including actual term of imprisonment to the tune of 14 years, 3 months and 26 days. During the period of imprisonment, the petitioner availed interim bail from 07.11.2004 to 23.11.2004, 01.10.2003 to 30.10.2003 and thereafter first, second, third and fourth regular parole from 07.05.2007 to 26.05.2007, 19.05.2009 to 17.06.2009, 21.04.2011 to 30.05.2011 and 08.12.2012 to 16.01.2013 respectively. While availing the last parole the petitioner reported to jail on 17.01.2013 instead of 16.01.2013. Looking to this delay, a case for the offences punishable under Sections 224, 225 and 229, IPC was registered against him at Police Station Ratanada and he has already been charge-sheeted for that. 4. The respondents have denied permanent parole to the convict-prisoner on the count of delay caused in reporting to the State Custody after availing the last parole referred above. It is submitted by learned Govt. Advocate that the applicant has violated the condition of parole and as such he is not entitled for getting permanent parole. 5. We have considered the arguments advanced and also examined the available facts. Being served sentence for a period of 17 years, 9 months and 2 days including actual sentence for a period of 14 years, 3 months and 26 days as on 31.08.2013 the eligibility of the petitioner for grant of permanent parole is not in dispute. He also availed the interim bail twice and three regular paroles and every time he reported to the State Custody as per schedule. A delay of 12 hours was caused while availing the first annual parole i.e. from 08.12.2012 to 16.01.2013. 6. He also availed the interim bail twice and three regular paroles and every time he reported to the State Custody as per schedule. A delay of 12 hours was caused while availing the first annual parole i.e. from 08.12.2012 to 16.01.2013. 6. Suffice to mention that the petitioner preferred a D.B. Criminal Parole Petition No.550/2013 with assertion that he belongs to a village located in remote forest area and this distant location caused delay in reaching Jodhpur. In any case he reported to the Prison in morning of the next day to the scheduled day. 7. The writ petition aforesaid came to be disposed of by the order dated 09.07.2013 with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for condonation of delay sympathetically. No decision in pursuance to directions given under the order dated 19.07.2013 has yet been taken. 8. Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has already completed the actual term of sentence for a period of more than 14 years, there is nothing adverse about his conduct except causing a delay of 12 hours in reporting the State Custody that may be an impediment for grant of permanent parole. The delay appears to have been caused for bona fide reason. If the petitioner had any ill motive he would have stayed away for more time. During the period the petitioner remained out of custody he did not commit any wrong. The bona fide delay in reporting to State Custody, thus, deserves to be condoned. Accordingly, the delay of 12 hours in reporting to State Prison after availing parole from 08.12.2012 to 16.01.2013 is condoned. 9. The writ petition is allowed with direction to the respondents to release the petitioner forthwith on permanent parole with reasonable and adequate conditions as per the Rules of 1958. Petition allowed.