Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 2152 (RAJ)

Rakesh v. State

2021-11-16

SAMEER JAIN, SANDEEP MEHTA

body2021
JUDGMENT 1. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the convict-petitioner Rakesh S/o Shri Ghasi Ram with a prayer to direct the respondents to release him on permanent parole. The adverse recommendations dated 19.01.2021 whereby, the petitioner has been denied permanent parole by the State Level Parole Committee are assailed in this writ petition. 2. Learned counsel Shri Bhati submits that that the petitioner has served imprisonment of more than 14 years satisfactorily. He is being granted regular paroles and has earned entitlement for being released on permanent parole and thus, rejection of the petitioner's case for being released on permanent parole is totally unwarranted. In support of his contentions, reliance is placed on the order dated 04.01.2020 passed in D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.419/2019 (Shankar Lal vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.) and the order dated 15.03.2021 passed in D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.59/2021 ( Nema Ram vs State of Rajashan & Ors.). Shri Bhati submitted that the writ petition deserves to be accepted and the petitioner should be ordered to be released on permanent parole while setting aside the adverse recommendations. 3. Per contra, Shri Joshi, learned G.A.-cum-A.A.G. (In Charge) submitted that the petitioner had previously approached this Court by way of writ petition (No. 15/2020) for assailing the impugned order dated 23.12.2019, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner for being released on permanent parole was rejected. The writ petition preferred by the petitioner was rejected by the Division Bench of this Court holding that he is not entitled to be released on permanent parole because he was found indulged in commission of crime during the first parole. Shri Joshi pointed out that not only did the petitioner's counsel conceal this material fact by failing to mention about rejection of the writ petition (No. 15/2020) in the foot-note of the instant writ petition but even thereafter another abortive attempt was made by the petitioner through his counsel Shri Kalu Ram Bhati by filing writ petition (No.373/2020) which too has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 28.09.2020. He thus urged that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief prayed for on account of concealment of material facts and as he is otherwise not entitled to be released on permanent parole. 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record. 5. He thus urged that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief prayed for on account of concealment of material facts and as he is otherwise not entitled to be released on permanent parole. 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record. 5. Suffice it to say that the petitioner's Counsel has casually mentioned the fact of rejection of the petitioner's earlier prayer for release on permanent parole (vide order dated 14.05.2020 passed in D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.15/2020) in ground 'C of the present writ petition but as a matter of fact, this fact should have been mentioned in the foot-notes below the writ petition because the prayer which was made in the said writ petition is exactly the same which is reiterated in the present writ petition. Not only this, the petitioner's counsel conveniently omitted to mention the factum of the rejection of the writ petition No.373/2020 by order dated 28.09.2020 in the pleadings of the present writ petition even though the controversy involved in that writ petition was also ad idem. The writ petition No. 15/2020 preferred by the petitioner was rejected by this Court vide order dated 14.05.2020 observing as below: "14. It is true that as per the law laid down by this Court in Suraj Girl's case (supra), in cases where the prisoners have served requisite period of sentence, they may be released on permanent parole notwithstanding the fact that they have not availed the benefit of first, second and third parole or any of them. But in the instant case, the petitioner had availed the first parole and while on parole he indulged in commission of offence and thus, neither he was entitled to be released on second and third parole nor he is entitled to be considered for release on permanent parole in terms of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958. Obviously, in terms of law laid down by this Court in Suraj Gin's case (supra), the case for release on permanent parole of the prisoner who has not availed the first, second and third parole, shall be considered on the basis of his conduct during the stay in jail including likelihood of his relapsing into crime if released on permanent parole. Suffice it to say that the petitioner who has not been extended the benefit of second and third parole on account of his indulging in commission of the crime during first parole, cannot be treated at par qua the person who has not availed the second and third parole after availing the first parole peacefully and thus, the question of his entitlement for release on permanent parole in terms of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958 does not arise. 15. In view of the discussion above, the decision of the State Parole Advisory Committee in refusing to recommend the case of the petitioner for permanent parole, does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India." 6. The writ Petition No.373/2020 was dismissed as withdrawn on 28.09.2020 as below:- "After arguing the matter for quite some time, keeping in view the adjudication made by this Court vide order dated 14.05.2020 passed in D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.15/2020, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition." 7. Thus, it is apparent that the petitioner's counsel has intentionally omitted to mention these facts in the writ petition. He is advised to remain careful in future. The petitioner is given liberty to renew the prayer for permanent parole after two years from today as we do not find him entitled to the said relief at this stage. 8. The instant writ petition is rejected as being devoid of merit with the above observations.