Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Shivcharan S/O Shri Babu Lal Bairwa vs State Of Rajasthan on 21 November, 2022
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari, Sameer Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Criminal Writ Petition (Parole) No. 584/2022
Shivcharan S/o Shri Babu Lal Bairwa, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
Village Budiliya Ki Dhani Geejgarh Police Station Manpur, Tehsil
Sikrai, Distt. Dausa (Raj.) ( At Present In Central Jail Jaipur)
Through His Father Babu Lal S/o Late Shri Durga Lal, Aged About
53 Years, R/o Village Budiliya Ki Dhani Geejgarh Police Station
Manpur, Tehsil Sikrai, Distt. Dausa (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Home,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The District Parole Advisory Committe Through Its
Chairman, Distt. Magistrate, Jaipur.
3. Superintendent Central Jail, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishram Prajapati For Respondent(s) : Mr. Javed Choudhary, AGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 21/11/2022
1. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition (parole) seeking fourth regular parole for a period of fourty days under Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021.
2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the prayer for parole was rejected by the Authorities on the ground that petitioner is not entitled for parole as per Rules, 2021, as he is undergoing sentence which is under the restricted category by virtue of Rule 16 of Rules, 2021. It is also contended that petitioner has been convicted and sentenced under Section 302 (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 02:22:07 PM) (2 of 3) [CRLW-584/2022] IPC and the only rider for prisoners convicted under Section 302 IPC is that accused should have undergone half of the sentence. As per Rule 17 of the Rules, 2021, for the purpose of computation of life imprisonment, the same will be reckoned as 20 years for the purpose of Rules, 2021. It is further contended that petitioner has already remained in confinement for ten years, eight months and twenty two days and is thus, entitled for regular parole.
3. Learned Addl. Government Advocate has opposed the petition. It is contended that petitioner has remained absconded from the open jail. It is also contended that petitioner has efficacious alternate remedy but learned AGA has not been able to refute the factum that petitioner is sentenced only under Section 302 IPC and not for any connected offence which falls under the restricted categories under the Rules 2021.
4. We have considered the contentions.
5. Considering the fact that petitioner has remained in custody for a period of ten years, eight months and twenty two days and has undergone half of the sentence, as per Rules 2021, that he does not fall under any restricted categories as provided under Rule 16 of the Rules, 2021 and that point of law is involved even if he has not availed the remedy and looking the facts and circumstances of case, we deem it proper to allow the writ petition.
6. Consequently, the writ petition (parole) stands allowed. Order dated 27.07.2022 passed by District Parole Advisory Committee, Jaipur qua the petitioner is quashed. The Jail Authorities are directed to release the petitioner on fourth regular parole for a period of fourty days, on furnishing of his personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of like amount to the (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 02:22:07 PM) (3 of 3) [CRLW-584/2022] satisfaction of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur with the stipulation that he shall surrender himself before the Jail Authority on expiry of fourty days and shall maintain peace and tranquility during parole period.
7. In case of failure to surrender by stipulated date, the Jail Authority shall proceed in accordance with Law.
8. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Authorities as well as petitioner through Jail Authority for compliance.
(SAMEER JAIN),J (PANKAJ BHANDARI),J
CHANDAN /17
(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 02:22:07 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)