Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Baggar @ Jalandhar Singh vs State Of Raj on 19 September, 2012
Bench: Govind Mathur, R.S. Chauhan
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
ORDER
D.B. CIVIL WRIT (PAROLE) PETITION NO.5907/2012
Baggad Singh @ Jalandhar Singh
Versus
The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Date of Order :: 19.09.2012
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.S. CHAUHAN
By post
Mr. K.R. Bishnoi - Additional Government Advocate
BY THE COURT :
The State Level Parole Committee in its meeting dated 21.02.2012 did not consider the case of the petitioner for grant of permanent parole being having an impediment as per Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1958').
The submission of the petitioner is that this Court in several writ petitions has taken a view that the requirement of spending eleven months after surrendering from first, second and third regular parole is not applicable while considering the case of a convict prisoner for grant of permanent parole, but the respondents ignoring the same denied parole to the convict prisoner.
Learned Government Advocate though made an effort (2) to support the decision of the respondents but has accepted that this Court in several cases including D.B. Civil Writ (Parole) Petition No.5152/2012 (Suraj Giri v. State & Ors.); D.B. Civil Writ Petition (Parole) No.12177/2011 (Harji v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) and D.B. Civil Writ (Parole) Petition No.4938/2012 (Baggad Singh @ Jalandhar Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), held that the requirement of spending eleven months after surrendering from first, second and third regular parole, as the case may be, is not applicable while considering the case of a convict prisoner for grant of permanent parole.
It is really sad state of affairs that the State Level Committee in spite of the clear directions given by this Court in several cases is not awarding permanent parole just by placing reliance upon Rule 10 of the Rules of 1958. In the instant matter the only reason for denying permanent parole to the petitioner is the impediment given in Rule 10 aforesaid.
Having considered facts of the case we deem it appropriate to accept this petition for writ. Accordingly, the same is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant permanent parole to the petitioner forthwith. Necessary order in this regard in accordance with the Rules of 1958 is required to be passed on or before 28.09.2012.
While disposing of this petition for writ we deem it appropriate to avail an explanation from the Director General (Prisons) as to why proceedings be not initiated against him for not (3) making compliance of the directions given by this Court in several cases including the cases referred in preceding paras for not applying the provisions of Rule 10 of the Rules of 1958 while considering a case for grant of permanent parole. The explanation is required to be filed by the Director General (Prisons) on or before 28.09.2012. The Director General is further required to remain present before the Court personally on 28.09.2012.
[R.S. CHAUHAN], J. [GOVIND MATHUR], J. Pramod