Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 170 (RAJ)

Jagdish Narayan v. State of Rajasthan

2016-01-28

AJIT SINGH, MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2016
ORDER : This appeal has been filed by appellant against judgment of learned Single Judge dated 29.10.2015, by which his writ petition was dismissed on the ground that offence alleged against petitioner under Section 376 IPC is quite serious and, therefore, he may not be given indulgence of permanent parole. In writ petition, petitioner prayed for a direction to respondents to release him on permanent parole under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958. 2. Shri B.R. Choudhary, learned counsel for appellant submits that accused-appellant Jagdish Narayan was convicted for aforesaid offence in Sessions Case No.108/2007 by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jaipur District, Jaipur vide his judgment dated 09.01.2009. One Kajod Mal was also convicted for same offence along with the appellant. Both of them were awarded rigorous imprisonment of 10 years with fine. When the case of Kajod Mal was placed before the Parole Advisory Committee in its meeting dated 18.06.2014, it recommended his case for release on permanent parole considering that he has served out sentence of 6 years, 5 months and 11 days and has earned remission of 1 year, 9 months and 8 days. He has availed regular parole on three occasions and surrendered in time. In his case, the Parole Advisory Committee has also taken into consideration the recommendation of District Magistrate and Probation and Jail Welfare Officer, Jaipur (Rural) on the conduct of Kajod Mal. Learned counsel for appellant has also placed for perusal of the court a copy of order dated 02.12.2015 of a coordinate bench of this court in Special Appeal (Writ) No.1037/2015, filed by co-accused Harsahay Bairwa, who was also convicted and sentenced in the same criminal case and whose prayer for release on permanent parole was also declined by the State Level Parole Advisory Committee in its meeting dated 11.08.2015 on the premise that offence under Section 376 of the IPC is a serious offence. In that case also, learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that offence alleged against him under Section 376 IPC is quite serious and therefore he may not be given indulgence of permanent parole. On appeal, the Division Bench allowed the same and appellant was ordered to be released on permanent parole. 3. In that case also, learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that offence alleged against him under Section 376 IPC is quite serious and therefore he may not be given indulgence of permanent parole. On appeal, the Division Bench allowed the same and appellant was ordered to be released on permanent parole. 3. Learned counsel for appellant has argued that case of appellant is exactly identical to the case of aforesaid Kajod Mal and Harsahay Bairwa. Appellant was also convicted by same judgment and for the same offence was awarded sentence of 10 years. In fact, appellant has served out actual sentence of more than 8 years 10 months and 18 days, as is evident from the nominal roll placed along-with reply as Annexure R/2. Appellant also availed the benefit of parole on three times and timely surrendered and there was never any complaint against him of misusing the liberty. The conduct of appellant in jail has throughout been satisfactory, which is clearly proved from the nominal roll annexed with the reply to the writ petition as Annexure R/2. Prayer of appellant for release on permanent parole has been mechanically declined by the State Level Parole Advisory Committee in its meeting dated 11.08.2015 on the premise that offence under Section 376 of IPC is a serious offence and, therefore, appellant cannot be released on parole. Co-accused, namely, Indraj @ Raju S/o Shri Dhanna Lal has already been released on permanent parole vide order dated 03.08.2015 by the State Parole Committee. He was convicted and sentenced for offence under Section 376 (2)(G) of the IPC. He served 8 years 5 months and 16 days of sentence including the remission. 4. Shri B.N. Sandu, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents State, opposed the appeal, but could not dispute the correctness of the aforesaid factual contents in the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant. 5. Considering that case of appellant Jagdish Narayan is exactly identical to that of co-accused Harsahay Bairwa and Kajod Mal, we see no justification for discriminatory treatment meted out to him by the Parole Advisory Committee. Both of them were convicted for the same offence under Section 376 of IPC in the same criminal case and by the same judgment. They both have availed benefit of parole on three occasions and timely surrendered. Both of them were convicted for the same offence under Section 376 of IPC in the same criminal case and by the same judgment. They both have availed benefit of parole on three occasions and timely surrendered. There is no allegation against the appellant of misusing the liberty granted to him during parole period. Appellant has now actually served out sentence of 8 years and 11 months inclusive of remission. The respondents have not pointed out any reason why he should not be extended the benefit of parole. Action of the respondents is clearly discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of learned Single Judge dated 29.10.2015 is set aside. Appellant shall be released on permanent parole upon his furnishing one personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of respondent no.3 - the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur.