Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 495 (RAJ)

Mangi Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2014-02-17

ATUL KUMAR JAIN, GOVIND MATHUR

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. This petition for writ is preferred by the convict-prisoner Mangi Lai S/o Shri Mangla Ram to challenge the decision of the State Level Parole Committee dated 4.9.2012, denying permanent parole to him. 2. In brief, facts of the case are that the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh by its judgment dated 28.10.1999 convicted the accused-petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo life term imprisonment with a fine of X 21,000/-. He has already served sentence for a period of 15 years, 8 months and 22 days excluding the jail remission for a period of two years, 10 months and 12 days and State remission for a period of 1 year and 10 months as on 9.11.2013. 3. The State Level Parole Committee wile considering case of the petitioner for grant of parole examined the adverse remarks given by the District Magistrate, Hanumangarh and District Probation Cum Social Welfare Officer, Hanumangarh. The adverse remarks made by the officers referred above are also supplied to us for perusal. The District Magistrate in his remarks stated that the convict-prisoner and the victim party are residents of the same village, therefore, in the event of grant of permanent parole, apprehension for causing breach to the peace and tranquility of the area cannot be denied. In the same communication, District Magistrate also referred that other family members of the convict-prisoner are not having any criminal record. The report given District Probation cum Social Welfare Officer, Hanumangarh is also of the same nature. 4. We have considered the report of the State Level Parole Committee and the adverse remarks made by the District Magistrate, Hanumangarh and District Probation Cum Social Welfare Officer, Hanumangarh. There is no dispute about eligibility of the convict-prisoner to have permanent parole under the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Rules of 1958'). His jail conduct too is satisfactory and there is nothing adverse for denying permanent parole to him. The only reason given for denying permanent parole to the petitioner is that the victim party as well as the convict-prisoner both are residents of the same village and looking to that fact, apprehension of causing injury to the petitioner himself by the victim party cannot be denied. The only reason given for denying permanent parole to the petitioner is that the victim party as well as the convict-prisoner both are residents of the same village and looking to that fact, apprehension of causing injury to the petitioner himself by the victim party cannot be denied. The eventuality relied upon by the State Level Parole Committee is quite obvious and that would always remain in existence. However, merely on this count, reformatory steps initiated under the Rules of 1958 cannot be frustrated. If the respondents are having any apprehension for causing injury to the convict-prisoner then appropriate course is to provide him necessary security instead of denying permanent parole to the petitioner. In view of this, we are inclined to grant this petition for writ. Accordingly, the same is accepted and the respondents are directed to award permanent parole to the convict-prisoner provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- to the satisfaction of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Sriganganagar. The respondents shall also provide necessary security to the convict-prisoner, if so required.Petition allowed. *******