Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1807 (RAJ)

Ranjeet Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2021-09-22

CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA, PRAKASH GUPTA

body2021
ORDER 1. The petitioner's brother Ranjeet Singh was convicted by the trial court for the offence under Sections 498A and 304B IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. 2. Having completed more than 10 years of sentence including permissible remissions, the convict prayed for premature permanent parole under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1958"). However, his application for permanent parole was not recommended by the Parole Committee, which was accepted by the State Government and accordingly vide communication dated 15.04.2021, the convict-petitioner was denied permanent parole. Accordingly, the petitioner's brother has approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition seeking to assail the impugned adverse recommendations and praying for a direction to release the convict petitioner on permanent parole for the remainder of his period of sentence by virtue of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958. 3. The respondents have filed a reply to the parole writ petition admitting that the conduct of the convict-prisoner has been satisfactory. It has further been mentioned that the convict-petitioner was in District Jail, Sikar and from there he was sent to Open Air Camp, Bharatpur. It has further been mentioned that the petitioner has served a period of 8 years and 9 months and 14 days sentence out of the total period of life imprisonment, therefore, the Committee did not recommend to release the convict petitioner on permanent parole. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the convict-petitioner has already availed three regular paroles of 20, 30 and 40 days. He surrendered himself before the concerned authority on due date. After consideration with regard to good conduct, the convict petitioner was shifted to Open Air Camp. There was no complaint against him during the parole period. He further submits that other persons who were convicted for the offence under Sections 498A and 304B IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment have been granted permanent parole by the State Level Parole Committee in its meeting dated 30.7.2019, whereas the convict-petitioner has been denied permanent parole. Therefore, the action of the respondents is discriminatory in nature and he is entitled to be released on permanent parole. 5. Therefore, the action of the respondents is discriminatory in nature and he is entitled to be released on permanent parole. 5. Learned GA-cum-AAG appearing for the respondents-State has opposed the same and submits that the convict-petitioner has been convicted for the offence of dowry death and the said offence falls within the category of a heinous one. He has defended the impugned communication dated 15.4.2021. 6. The respondents have tried to explain the situation by mentioning that those prisoners, who have been granted permanent parole, had served significantly longer terms of imprisonment as compared to the convict petitioner before their cases were considered and recommended for permanent parole. It is also mentioned that the petitioner has undergone only 10 years, 8 months and 22 days and thus, a short term of stay in the prison is not sufficient so as to entitle him for release on permanent parole. 7. We have heard and appreciated the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the statutory provision i.e. Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958 and various orders placed on record. 8. Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958 is reproduced herein below for the sake of ready reference:- "9. Parole Period. - A prisoner, who has completed with remission, if any, [one fourth] of his sentence and subject to good conduct in the Jail, may be released on 1st parole for 20 days including days of journey to home and back, and for 30 days on 2nd parole provided his behaviour has been good during 1st parole and for 40 days on third parole provided his behaviour has been good during the second parole. If during the third parole also the prisoner has behaved well and his character has been exceedingly well and if the prisoner's conduct has been such that he is not he is not likely to replace into crime, his case may be recommended to the Government through the 3 [State Committee] for permanent release on parole on such conditions as deemed fit by the Superintendent Jail and the District Magistrate concerned; the Chief condition among them being that if the prisoner while on parole commits any offence or abets, directly or indirectly, commission of any offence, he has to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence in addition to any sentence imposed upon him by reason of such an offence. In case the permanent release on parole is rejected, the prisoner will be eligible for release on parole for 40 days every year subject to the same conditions for the remaining period of his sentence; [Provided that cases of prisoners who have been sentenced to imprisonment for life, for an offence for which death penalty is one of the punishments provided by law or who have been sentenced to death but this sentence has been commuted under section 433 of Code of Criminal Procedure into one of life imprisonment shall not be placed before the State Committee for permanent release on parole unless he has served 14 years of imprisonment excluding remission, but including the period of detention passed during enquiry, investigation or trial. Such prisoners may be released on parole for 40 days every year for the remaining period of their sentence subject to the conditions stated above. Section 433A of Cr.P.C. postulates that:-"Restriction on powers of remission or Commutation in certain cases. Notwithstanding anything contained in section 432, where a sentence of imprisonment for life is imposed on conviction of a person for an offence for which death is one of the punishments provided by law, or where a sentence of death imposed on a person has been commuted under section 433 into one of imprisonment for life, such person shall not be released from prison unless he had served at least fourteen years of imprisonment." 9. In view of the fact that death sentence is not one of the penalties provided by law for the offence under Section 304B IPC, manifestly, the restriction contained in Section 433A of the Cr.P.C. and the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958 would not act to the detriment of the convict petitioner so as to make him ineligible for consideration for grant of permanent parole. The other persons have also been granted permanent parole by the State Government. Although the convict petitioner has served more than 10 years of sentence, but in the reply it has been mentioned that the convict petitioner has served only 08 years and 9 months and 14 days out of the total period of life imprisonment. The other persons have also been granted permanent parole by the State Government. Although the convict petitioner has served more than 10 years of sentence, but in the reply it has been mentioned that the convict petitioner has served only 08 years and 9 months and 14 days out of the total period of life imprisonment. However, this is not a sufficient reason for denial of permanent parole to the convict petitioner because as per Rule 9, referred infra, a convict who has completed with remission, if any, one fourth of his sentence and has availed of first three paroles and his character has been exceedingly well and if he is not likely to relapse in crime, his case can be recommended to the State Government for release on permanent parole. 10. Admittedly, the convict petitioner has availed the first three paroles without a demur. There is nothing on record which shows that his conduct and work performance are unsatisfactory. Contrarily, the respondents themselves have admitted in the reply that the conduct of the convict petitioner in jail has been satisfactory. Thus, the case of the convict-petitioner shall be considered for permanent parole in view of the fact that he has availed three regular paroles and his character has been satisfactory during this period making him compliant of the legal requirement of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958, more particularly in view of the fact that other accused persons, who were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Sections 304B and 498A IPC, have been granted permanent parole. 11. In this background, we hereby quash the impugned recommendations dated 15.04.2021 qua the convict prisoner. We remand the matter back to the State Government who shall objectively reconsider his case for grant of permanent parole under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958 and pass a reasoned order thereupon within a period of two months from today while keeping in view the observations made above. The parole writ petition is disposed of in these terms.