Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 389 (RAJ)

Parthu v. State of Rajasthan

2014-02-06

ATUL KUMAR JAIN, GOVIND MATHUR

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. A letter addressed to this Court by convict prisoner Parthu S/o. Kachru is treated as petition for writ. The petitioner is seeking a direction for awarding him 20 days first regular parole as per provisions of Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1958'). The petitioner was convicted for offence punishable under Sections 141, 323, 324, 325, 302/149 I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo life term imprisonment inter alia by the judgment dated 27.11.2009 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Banswara. The petitioner has already served sentence for a period of 07 years, 01 month and 06 days including jail remission for a period of 11 months & 05 days and state remission for a period of six months as on 20.12.2013, as such, the petitioner is eligible to be considered for grant of first regular parole. 2. The District Level Parole Advisory Committee, Banswara in its meeting dated 6.9.2013 refused for grant of parole to the petitioner in view of adverse remarks made by District Probation cum Prison Welfare officer, Department of Social Justice & Empowerment and also by the Superintendent of Police, Banswara. As per the Superintendent of Police, Banwara, the family of petitioner was not residing at their native place. The District Probation cum Prison Welfare officer, Department of Social Justice & Empowerment stated that the accused was convicted for committing murder and as yet no compromise has occurred between the parties as per their social customs, therefore, an apprehension exists for causing breach to peace and tranquility of the area. So far as the jail conduct of the petitioner is concerned, that is found satisfactory. 3. We have considered all facts of the case. The petitioner is having eligibility to be considered for grant of parole but that has been denied only for the reason that the police at the first instance failed to collect necessary details about the present place of residence of family members of the petitioner. 3. We have considered all facts of the case. The petitioner is having eligibility to be considered for grant of parole but that has been denied only for the reason that the police at the first instance failed to collect necessary details about the present place of residence of family members of the petitioner. The Station House Officer, Police Station, Bhungada, District Banswara by his communication dated 22.1.2014 has informed learned Government Advocate about all necessary details pertaining to the place of residence of relatives of the accused and that is as under:- 1- cUnh ds ifjokj esa dkSu&dkSu lnL; gS\ orZeku esa dgka jg jgs gS\ egksn;] mDr cUnh Jh ijrq firk dp: tkfr nk;ek vkfnoklh fuoklh xksjNk iqfyl Fkkuk HkqaxM+k ds ifjokj esa Lo;a cUnh ijrq dh iRuh Jhefr Qqydh ,oa mldk yM+dk Jh Q.kh;k mez 9 lky ,oa yM+dh lqJh y{eh mez djhc lk<+s ikap lky tks orZeku esa cUnh ijrq dh iRuh Jherh Qqydh vius ekrk&firk ( fi;j ) xzke Bspyk Fkkuk fiiy[kqWV ftyk izrkix<+ ( jkt0 ) esa Jh cDlq firk ukFkq tkfr fuukek mez 62 o"kZ fuoklh Bspyk Fkkuk fiiy[kwWV ftyk izrkix<+ ( jkt0 ) ds ;gk izdj.k dh ?kVuk fnukad 03-04-2008 ds le; ls gh ogha jg jgs gSA 2- cUnh Jh ijrq firk dp: tkfr nk;ek vkfnoklh fuoklh xksjNk dk NksVk HkkbZ Jh eqds'k firk dp: nk;ek vkfnoklh fuoklh xksjNk izdj.k dh ?kVuk ds ckn ls gh vius llqjky xzke >jh ( okxuyk [kksjk ) Fkkuk HkqaxM+k ftyk ckWalokM+k esa vius llqj Jh ekoth firk tksxh;k pjiksVk fuoklh >jh ds ;gka viuh iRuh Jhefr dslj ,oa nks yM+dksa ds lkFk jg jgk gSA 3- cUnh ijrq dk dkdk Jh izHkq firk [kkrh;k tkfr nk;ek fuoklh xksjNk tks izdj.k dh ?kVuk ds ckn ls gh e; vius ifjokj ds llqjky xzke vk[kkiqj Fkkuk fiiy[kqWV ftyk izrkix<+ ( jkt0 ) esa jg jgk gSA 4- cUnh Jh ijrq firk dp: tkfr nk;ek vkfnoklh fuoklh xksjNk ds dkdk Jh xksre firk [kkrh;k tkfr nk;ek fuoklh xksjNk Hkh izdj.k dh ?kVuk ds ckn viuh llqjky xzke :ft;k xzke iapk;r rstiqj Fkkjk lnj ckalokM+k ds lkyk Jh vtqZu firk nsoth tkfr MksMh;kj ds ;gka jg jgk gSA 5- cUnh Jh ijrq firk dp: tkfr nk;ek vkfnoklh fuoklh xksjNk ds ifjokj dk dkdk Jh dkfy;k firk gjth tkfr nk;ek vknhoklh fuoklh xksjNk Hkh izdj.k dh ?kVuk ds ckn ls gh viuh yM+dh ds ;gk xzke dqiM+k Fkkuk lnj ckalokM+k ds ;gka e; ifjokj fuokl dj jgk gSA 6- blh rjg cUnh Jh ijrq firk dp: tkfr nk;ek vkfnoklh fuoklh xksjNk ds ppsjk HkkbZ euth firk fnrh;k nk;ek fuokl xksjNk Hkh izdj.k gktk dh ?kVuk ds le; ls gh vius ifjokj esa iRuh Jhefr njh;k ,oa yM+ds nsopUn] dkfUryky] fnus'k ds lkFk vius llqj Jh xsck firk /kkjth tkfr ebZM+k fuoklh phc Fkkuk HkqaxM+k ds ;gka jg jgs gSA " 4. So far as apprehension made by the District Probation Officer is concerned, suffice to mention here that merely on the count that the parties have not yet arrived at a compromise as per their social customs cannot be a reason to deny statutory parole to a convict prisoner. Parole as provided under the Rules of 1958 can be denied only after arriving at a conclusion that no chance exists for reformation of the criminal even by affording parole to him and their exists all chances for his re-involvement in criminal activity. No such finding is given in the instant matter. In view of it, we are inclined to grant this petition. 5. Accordingly, this petition for writ is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant first 20 days regular parole to convict prisoner Parthu S/o. Kachru provided he furnishes two sureties in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each and a personal-bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of Superintendent, Central Jail, Udaipur. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Udaipur shall be at liberty to impose other adequate and reasonable conditions upon the convict prisoner to ensure his return to State custody.Petition allowed. *******