Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 766 (RAJ)

Sanjay alias Gafudiya v. State of Rajasthan

2013-04-16

BANWARI LAL SHARMA, DINESH MAHESHWARI

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. We have heard the petitioner present in person and the learned Government Counsel. 2. The petitioner, said to be serving the sentence awarded by the Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Banswara in the judgment and order dated 21-3-2006 in Sessions Case No. 17/2005, has moved this parole petition with the submissions that he is serving the sentence at Open Air Camp, Keswana, District Jalore; and as at present, he is availing of 40 days regular parole, as granted for the period from 9-3-2013 to 17-4-2013. 3. The petitioner has submitted that during his parole enlargement, his family has fixed up his marriage and the marriage is to be solemnized on 29-4-2013 at Banswara. The petitioner has submitted certain certificates from public representatives in confirmation of the fact that his marriage is scheduled on 29th instant. 4. With reference to the above mentioned facts, the petitioner has prayed for being granted 30 days emergent parole, particularly for the purpose of his marriage. 5. The learned Government Counsel has procured verification from the Superintendent, District Jail, Jalore and it is pointed out that as on 15-4-2013, the petitioner has served about 10 years 1 months and 4 days of actual imprisonment and has earned remissions of about 3 years 6 months and 7 days. His conduct is said to be satisfactory. The learned Government Counsel further submits that earlier, the petitioner made this prayer for emergent parole on the ground of his marriage before the District Magistrate but on account of non-availability of the concerned District Magistrate, final orders could not be passed on this prayer. However, the learned Government Advocate further points out on instructions that the police station concerned, as also the Social Welfare Department have sent their reports to the District Magistrate and as per the those reports, the marriage of the petitioner is, in fact, scheduled for 29th instant. 6. The petitioner submits that for the purpose of the present release on parole, he has furnished personal bond and one surety in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-. The said bond and surety are obviously for the purpose of his surrendering on or before 17-4-2013. 7. 6. The petitioner submits that for the purpose of the present release on parole, he has furnished personal bond and one surety in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-. The said bond and surety are obviously for the purpose of his surrendering on or before 17-4-2013. 7. On the pecular facts and in the given set of circumstances, we are of the considered view that when the conduct of the petitioner undergoing sentence is otherwise said to be satisfactory, and he is presently availing of parole; and his marriage is scheduled on 29-4-2013, the interest of justice shall be served if he is granted further indulgence in continuation of his parole release order dated 9-3-2013 by another period of about three weeks on the same terms and conditions as contained in the order dated 9-3-2013 and with the stipulation that the bail bond and surety as furnished by the petitioner shall now be read as having the requirement of his surrendering on or before 10-5-2013. Ordered accordingly. 8. We make it clear that we have passed this order looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. However, the period of enlargement as shall be availed by the petitioner after 17-4-2013 until his surrendering to the custody, i.e., on or before 10-5-2013 shall be counted as the period of emergent parole and not the regular one. 9. The petition stands partly allowed to the extent indicated above. Petition partly allowed.