Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ajay S/O Shri Ramnivas vs State Of Rajasthan on 5 August, 2022
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari, Sameer Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 392/2022
Ajay S/o Shri Ramnivas, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village
Dhigariya Kapoor, Police Station Bandikui, District Dausa (At
Present In Central Jail Jaipur) Through His Wife Pooja Devi W/o
Shri Ajay, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Dhigariya Kapoor,
Police Station Bandikui, District Dausa (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Home,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The District Magistrate, Dausa
3. Superintendent Central Jail, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishram Prajapati, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Rekha Madnani, Additional Government Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 05/08/2022
1. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition through his wife seeking emergent parole for a period of 30 days on ground of his wife's want of progeny.
2. Leaned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in D. B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 10/2022 titled as Nand Lal Vs. State & Ors.
3. Learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted reply wherein she has stated that accused-petitioner has been sentenced to life imprisonment till his natural life. The (Downloaded on 08/08/2022 at 09:53:25 PM) (2 of 3) [CRLW-392/2022] accused-petitioner is convicted for a heinous offence under the POCSO Act. Learned Additional Government Advocate has produced the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (Criminal) Diary No. 21875/2022 dated 1.08.2022, arising out of the judgment relied by learned counsel for the petitioner in Nand lal (supra) and the Hon'ble Apex Court has passed the following order:-
"Delay condoned.
While we have reservations on some of the observations made in the impugned order, we are not inclined to interfere with the direction which would have been implemented. However, it is clarified that it will be open to the petitioners to raise all pleas and contentions before the High Court. In case any third person applied for parole/furlough giving same/similar reason. Such plea and contention would be examined on merits.
Recording the aforesaid, the petitioner for special leave to appeal is dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."
4. From perusal of Rule relied upon for grant of present petition i.e. Rule 11 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021 (for short, 'the Rules of 2021'), the emergent cases mentioned therein include critical condition on account of illness of any close relative; death of any such close relative; serious damage to life or property from any natural calamity; marriage of a Prisoner, his/her son or daughter or his/her brothers/sister in case his/her parents are not alive; and delivery of Prisoner's wife. 'Progeny' as such is not included in the above list. In the facts of the present case, the accused is convicted for a heinous offence under POCSO Act and has undergo life sentence till his natural life.
5. In the light of the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court and also as the petition does not qualify in the (Downloaded on 08/08/2022 at 09:53:25 PM) (3 of 3) [CRLW-392/2022] emergent cases, more particularly as the release of prisoner on the Rules of 2021 otherwise provide for release of prisoner for a period of 20 days, 30 days, 40 days, as the case may be, after a particular period in custody, the right of progeny cannot be claimed as of right. This court is of the considered view that if such petitions are to be entertained then floodgate of such petitions wuold open and prisoners may come to the Court every month stating therein that wife could not conceive or for other consequential reasons. This Court in D. B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 200/2022 titled as Vandana Sharma & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., declined the application for emergent parole for similar circumstances.
6. From perusal of the Rule 11 of the Rules of 2021, it is evident that legislature did not intend to include progeny as a ground for release on emergent parole, hence, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition.
7. The writ petition (emergent parole) is accordingly, dismissed.
(SAMEER JAIN),J (PANKAJ BHANDARI),J
Pooja/13
(Downloaded on 08/08/2022 at 09:53:25 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)