Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 35 (MP)

Pyaru Bai v. State of M. P.

2017-01-09

PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA

body2017
ORDER 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 10.3.2016 whereby the appeal against the order rejecting the application of petitioner for releasing her husband on parole has been dismissed. 2. In brief, the petitioner's husband, Modu Jat s/o Ramaji Jat was convicted by the trial Court on 13.12.1999 for offences under sections 302/34, 222, 223, 224 and 34 of the IPC and sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and was sentenced to life imprisonment. Appeal against the said judgment was dismissed by the High Court by order dated 22.6.2009. The application for releasing the petitioner's husband on parole was filed by the petitioner on 28.7.2015 on the ground that the petitioner was not keeping well. The respondent No.3 had submitted the report on 11.9.2015 recommending the rejection of the application and respondent No.2 had rejected the application on 16.9.2015. The petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No.7247/2015 which was dismissed as withdrawn since the petitioner had remedy to prefer an appeal. The appeal so preferred by the petitioner has been rejected vide impugned order dated 10.3.2016. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that respondents have committed an error in rejecting the application of petitioner for releasing her husband on parole. He further submits that under the provisions of the Prisoners Act, 1900 and M.P. Prisoner’s Leave Rules, 1989 the petitioner's husband is entitled for release on parole. 3. Learned counsel for respondents has opposed the writ petition and submitted that petitioner's husband is not entitled for release on parole. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record it is noticed that the application of petitioner's husband has been rejected on the ground that petitioner's husband had earlier absconded and he has been convicted on that ground under section 224 of the IPC and sentenced for one year and 10 months, hence he was not entitled for being release on parole. The record reflects that husband of the petitioner while returning from Bagli Court to Ujjain on 11.9.2002 in connection with Criminal Case No.643/1997 had absconded from custody, hence FIR in Crime No.492/2002 was registered against him and in the year 2008, the Superintendent of Police had declared the reward of Rs.5,000/- and on 5.8.2010 the husband of the petitioner was traced out and arrested and sent to Central jail. The record further reveals that petitioner's husband was tried for the said offence under section 224 of the IPC and was convicted from the Court of JMFC, Bagli and sentenced to one year and 10 months. Rule 4-B(3) of M.P. Prisoner's Leave rules puts a bar on grant of leave to such prisoners. 5. That apart, it has also been pointed out that husband of the petitioner is a habitual offender and history sheeter. Annexure R-1 is the list of as many as 21 cases which were registered against the petitioner's husband. The documents enclosed along with Annexure R-3 reveal that the petitioner is a history sheeter. The Superintendent of Police has submitted a report dated 11.9.2015 (Annexure R-6) stating that the petitioner's husband is a 'Nigrani Badmash' and habitual offender and if he is granted parole, there is a possibility of his absconding again. In this regard it is worth noting that section 31A of the Prisoners Act, 1900 provides for grant of leave to prisoners but in terms of sub-section (2) thereof, the said benefit is not applicable to the prisoners who are classified as habitual criminals and who have more than three previous convictions. That apart, the reply of the respondents also reveals that the petitioner is seeking parole of her husband on the ground of her illness whereas on enquiry it has been found by the respondents that there are many other members in the family of the petitioner to look after her, hence ground for parole has also not been found to be a valid ground. The impugned order also reveals that respondents have considered all the relevant aspects of the matter and have rejected the petitioner application for grant of parole to her husband by passing a reasoned speaking order. 6. In the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the opinion that no case for interference in the impugned order is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.