Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhanwara Ram @ Bhanwar Lal vs State on 18 May, 2022
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 89/2022 Bhanwara Ram @ Bhanwar Lal S/o Chunna Ram, Aged About 39 Years, Nakoda Police Station Sindhari, Dist. Barmer Through His Brother Peera Ram S/o Chunna Ram Aged About 35 Years, R/o Nakoda Police Station Sindhari, Dist. Barmer. (Bhanwara Ram @ Bhanwar Lal At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Jodhpur).
----Petitioner Versus
1. State, Dept. Of Home, Jaipur.
2. The District Collector, Barmer, Rajasthan.
3. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dinesh Kumar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. MS Bhati, PP
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
18/05/2022
1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 27.07.2021, whereby petitioner's application for second parole of 30 days has been rejected by the District Parole Advisory Committee, Barmer.
2. The petitioner is serving the sentence for his conviction under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and read with Sections 3/ 4 of POCSO Act, 2012.
3. The petitioner moved an application on 04.06.2021 and prayed that he be given second parole of 30 days in accordance with the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1958").
4. In furtherance of the petitioner's application, the report of concerned Superintendent of Police, Barmer was sought, (Downloaded on 18/05/2022 at 11:19:36 PM) (2 of 4) [CRLW-89/2022] whereafter, petitioner's application was rejected by the Parole Advisory Committee in its meeting dated 27.07.2021 on the basis of report furnished by the Superintendent of Police, Barmer dated 30.06.2021.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Parole Advisory Committee has rejected petitioner's application solely on the basis of the illegal report sent by the Superintendent of Police, Barmer.
6. Inviting Court's attention towards the copy of the report dated 30.06.2021, which has been placed on record by the respondent- State, learned counsel pointed out that the Superintendent of Police has simply stated that the petitioner having committed a serious offence is serving life imprisonment and has so far served only 6 years and 6 months' sentence and if he is released on parole, it would have adverse impact on the society, victim and her family.
7. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, such report filed by the Superintendent of Police is a general report and does not indicate anything adverse against the petitioner, such as he would act vindictively against the family of the victim.
8. It was also argued that the embargo on release of a prisoner on parole, who is serving the sentence pursuant to conviction of heinous crime such as rape, etc, has been introduced with the amended Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 2021").
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was granted first parole of 20 days and after completion of the period, he had surrendered before the Jail Superintendent. (Downloaded on 18/05/2022 at 11:19:36 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLW-89/2022]
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner's application for the second parole was filed on 04.06.2021, on which date, the Rules of 2021 had not come into force, hence, the Parole Advisory Committee was not justified in rejecting petitioner's application for second parole.
11. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner is not entitled for parole as he has been convicted for heinous offence of commission of sexual assault on a minor girl.
12. It was also argued that if the petitioner is released, he would be meeting or facing the prosecutrix, which shall have adverse impact on her mental state.
13. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considering the order dated 01.04.2022, passed by this Court in S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.81/2022 (Mahendre Singh Vs. State & Ors.), this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner's application has wrongly been rejected. The petitioner's application, which was filed on 04.06.2021, cannot be decided in light of the Rules of 2021, which have come into force on 29.06.2021.
14. The petitioner's application for release on parole was filed prior to the amendment. Therefore, his application was required to be dealt with according to the provisions of Rules of 1958. The mere fact that a person is serving sentence of heinous crime, per se cannot be a reason to deny him parole.
15. Adverting to the report sent by the Superintendent of Police, this Court is of the view that the same is superfluous, if not shoddy, in nature. No specific report has been furnished by the (Downloaded on 18/05/2022 at 11:19:36 PM) (4 of 4) [CRLW-89/2022] Superintendent of Police for which petitioner's right to be released on parole should be curbed or denied.
16. As against this the Social Justice and Rights Department has furnished a report dated 22.06.2021, which entirely supports the petitioner's case. The report suggests that petitioner hails from a very poor background and his release on parole will have no adverse impact on society and his neighborhood.
17. In view of the discussion foregoing, the impugned order dated 27.07.2021, passed by the District Parole Advisory Committee is hereby quashed and set aside.
18. The petitioner's application dated 04.06.2021 is allowed.
19. The petitioner shall be released on 20 days parole upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- along with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each out of which, one should be petitioner's close family relative such as mother, father or brother, to the satisfaction of the concerned jail, Superintendent (without insisting upon Solvency Certificate).
20. Apart from the usual conditions, it is hereby ordered that the petitioner will not meet and try not to come in the immediate vicinity of the prosecutrix or her family members.
21. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur shall be at liberty to impose other adequate and reasonable conditions to ensure return of the convict to the custody after availing the parole. The term of parole shall be computed from the date of his actual release.
(DINESH MEHTA),J 220-pooja/-
(Downloaded on 18/05/2022 at 11:19:36 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)