Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 125 (RAJ)

Meetha Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2021-01-18

CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA, PRAKASH GUPTA

body2021
JUDGMENT : Prakash Gupta, J. 1. This parole petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer that the petitioner be released on 4th regular parole for 07 days. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was convicted by the trial court vide judgment dated 30.10.2006 for the offence u/Secs. 302 and 149 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The petitioner was arrested in May, 2003 and since then he is in judicial custody. He submits that the petitioner has served about 13 years 4 months of sentence without remission. The petitioner moved an application before Superintendent, Central Jail, Bharatpur for releasing him on 4th regular parole for 07 days, who in turn placed his application before the District Parole Advisory Committee, Karauli for consideration, but the same has been rejected vide order dated 14.7.2020 on the ground of adverse police report, which is without any basis. He further submits that case for regular parole should be considered by the parole committee on the basis of the conduct and behavior of the convict-prisoner in jail and not on the basis of adverse police report. He further submits that in the police report, Superintendent of Police, Karauli mentioned that for the period from 20.11.2013 to 29.12.2013 when the petitioner was released on 3rd parole, he did not surrender on time and absconded. Subsequently on 26.6.2017, the petitioner was arrested with illegal weapon and case No. 143/2017 was registered him for the offence under Sec. 3/25 of the Arms Act. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the order dated 1.12.2017 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19309/2017 titled Umar Mohammad vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; as also the order dated 28.11.2017 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20095/2017 titled Govind Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and contended that in terms of Rule 18 of the Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958 if a convict jumps parole, that would not be an absolute bar for granting him second, third or fourth parole. He further submits that jail conduct of the petitioner is satisfactory and even the Social Justice and Empowerment Department has recommended to release the petitioner on parole. He further submits that jail conduct of the petitioner is satisfactory and even the Social Justice and Empowerment Department has recommended to release the petitioner on parole. After registering the case No. 143/2017 on account of having the illegal weapon, the petitioner is behind the bars for about 3 1/2 years. The period of 4th parole is otherwise 40 days, but on account of escaping from parole and registration of case, it gets curtailed into 7 days. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to be granted 4th regular parole of 40 days. 3. In the reply, it is submitted that the petitioner is undergoing life imprisonment sentence for the offence under Section 302/149 IPC. Although the Superintendent of Jail has reported that the conduct of the petitioner in jail is satisfactory, but due to escaping from 40 days' regular parole, did not recommend parole to the petitioner. He submits that as the petitioner had earlier jumped from parole and illegal weapon was also recovered from him during absconding from jail, the petitioner should not be granted 4th regular parole. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. 5. The purpose of parole is to facilitate family ties being maintained. 6. Needless to say that in case the petitioner engage himself in any untoward incident during 4th parole of 07 days, same can be withdrawn and the petitioner can be called upon to serve his remaining sentence. 7. Considering the purpose of parole as also the period already suffered by the petitioner and more importantly in view of the orders passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Umar Mohammad (supra) and Govind Singh (supra), we deem it just and proper to grant the petitioner 4th parole of 07 days. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated 17.7.2020 qua petitioner stands quashed and set aside. We direct the concerned District Authority to release the convict-petitioner on 4th regular parole of 07 days, subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated 17.7.2020 qua petitioner stands quashed and set aside. We direct the concerned District Authority to release the convict-petitioner on 4th regular parole of 07 days, subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned District Magistrate with the stipulation that in case during 4th regular parole of 07 days, the petitioner commits any undesirable activity, he can be called upon to serve his remaining sentence and at the same time he shall also maintain peace and tranquility during the parole period and will abide by any other condition imposed by the authority concerned.