Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Mukesh Kumar vs State (Home Department)Ors on 7 November, 2016
Author: Ajay Rastogi
Bench: Ajay Rastogi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition (Parole) No. 9331/2016
Petitioner:-
Mukesh Kumar S/o Shri Ghasi Ram, by caste Jat, aged about
35 years, R/o Sonthalia, Police Station Reengus, District Sikar
(Rajasthan).
(At Present confined in Central Jail, Ajmer).
Through his sister Saroj Devi W/o Shri Rakesh Gardwal, by
caste Gardwal, aged about 30 years, R/o Akhepura, Palsana, Sikar
(Rajasthan).
VERSUS
Respondents:-
1. The State of Rajasthan through Home Secretary, Govt. of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The District Parole Advisory Committee through its Chairman,
District Magistrate, Sikar.
3. Superintendent Central Jail, Ajmer.
Date of Order: 07.11.2016
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI
Mr. Anshuman Saxena, counsel for petitioner.
Mr. B.N. Sandu, AAG-cum-GA for respondent.
Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, SP, Sikar ] Mr. Ram Pratap Singh, CI ] present in person.
ORDER Instant petition has been filed by the convict petitioner Mukesh Kumar S/o Ghasi Ram seeking second regular parole for a period of 30 days u/R 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules,1958 ("Rules,1958").
The petitioner on being convicted by Ld. Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Sikar in Sessions Case No.3/2006 vide judgment dt.10- 2 3-2011 for offence u/S 302/120B IPC is undergoing life sentence at Central Jail, Ajmer. Earlier on completion of 1/4 th of sentence awarded, application was filed by him seeking first regular parole and that was initially rejected by the District Parole Advisory Committee which came to be challenged by the convict petitioner in D.B. Civil Writ Petition (Parole) No.4810/2015 & was allowed vide order dt.23-4-2015, pursuant thereto the convict petitioner availed first regular parole for a period of 20 days and it is not the case of the respondents that he either breached or violated any of the conditions of parole availed by him.
After having been qualified to avail second regular parole under the Scheme of Rules,1958 application was submitted by him and obviously reports were furnished from the office of Superintendent of Police, Sikar dt. 20-6-2016 and Social Justice & Welfare Department dt. 14-6-2016 Annx. R/2 & from the report of S.P. Sikar it was indicated that 23 criminal cases are pending against him registered at different police stations and that appears to be a basis in not recommending his case for grant of second regular parole and as regards Social Justice & Welfare Department is concerned, they declined to recommend his case for grant of parole in its report dt.14-6-2016 for the reason that it may not be advisable to grant parole to the two convicts of the self same incident. It is informed that the other co-convict after availing parole has surrendered and that being so the reason assigned by 3 the Social Justice & Welfare Department in its report dt.14-6-2016 may not hold significance any further.
In the present writ petition information obtained from the office of SHO, Police Station Reengus, District Sikar dt.30-9-2014 under Right to Information is placed in which reference has been made of 23 criminal cases, out of which 2 cases have been shown to be pending against him, details of which has been indicated at serial no.3 & 10 respectively.
At the same time there was a report placed on record issued from the office of Superintendent of Police, Sikar dt.8-8-2016 wherein reference has been made of the 23 criminal cases with the status pending against him, we called upon the explanation of the officer to justify regarding the apparent contradiction in the report supplied under RTI issued from the office of SHO, Police Station Reengus, District Sikar dt.30-9-2014 & the report of Superintendent of Police, Sikar dt.8-8-2016 and in compliance thereof a further report is placed for perusal Annx.R/1 dt.26-9-2016 wherein three cases have been shown to be pending against him, viz-a-viz serial no.3 (Case No.133 dt.22-8-2000 for offence u/Ss 148, 341, 323 IPC), serial no.22 (Case No.123 dt.14-5-2004 for offence u/S 452, 323, 325 IPC) & Serial No.23 (Case No.151 dt.23-7-2005 for offence u/Ss 147, 148, 149, 308, 323, 382, 458, 459, 427 IPC) and the Court when further called upon the explanation yet there is a change/contradiction in the information now made available to the Court from the office of Additional Superintendent of Police, Neem 4 Ka Thana, Sikar dt.19-10-2016 and after the status of the 23 cases has been referred to, in the later list fate of the cases reveals that out of 23 cases, not a single case is pending against the convict petitioner and this Court takes a serious note of the matter that in the earlier report furnished from the office of Superintendent of Police, Sikar dt.8-8-2016 reference was made of all the 23 cases out of which 21 criminal cases are pending against the convict petitioner.
We called the Superintendent of Police, Sikar to explain regarding the apparent contradiction in the various reports being furnished to this Court of the relevant period. The officer present in Court has tried to justify and stated that it is not deliberate but because of human error being committed at the same time made a statement after perusal of the record maintained in his office that no case out of 23 cases of which reference has been made is pending against him and this fact has been checked by him personally from the record available in his office, before the statement being made to the Court.
After taking note of the material which has come on record & the submissions made this Court finds substance in the submission of the counsel for convict petitioner to grant indulgence of second regular parole prayed for but it will not be sufficient to conclude the matter and it is a serious matter where the contradictory reports are being furnished to the Court and no-one is taking responsibility in adopting corrective measures and it is informed 5 that notice u/R 17 of the CCA Rules,1958 have been served to 2/3 individual employees only just to save their skin and this fact cannot be ruled out that because of incorrect reports being furnished to the District Parole Advisory Committees certainly their deliberation in examining application of convict petitioner for parole has affected his right of fair consideration and it is high time when such on-going practices have to be curbed and it is expected from the Superintendent of Police Sikar to put their office in order and adopting corrective measures may not be sufficient unless strict disciplinary action is being taken against defaulting persons so that such casualties may not happen in future.
Consequently, writ petition stands allowed and recommendations of the committee in its meeting held on 20-6- 2016 qua petitioner stands quashed. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Ajmer is directed to release petitioner (Mukesh Kumar S/o Ghasi Ram) on second parole, if not availed of, for 30 days including days of journey to home & back from the date of his release on furnishing his personal bond besides one surety of Rs.25,000/- to the satisfaction of District Magistrate, Sikar with the stipulation that he shall surrender himself and return back to the jail authority on expiry of 30 days (supra) to be notified by District Magistrate/Jail authority and shall maintain peace & tranquility during parole period and in addition to it he shall further report during parole on each Sunday at 11 am at concerned police station and that report be furnished to the jail authority. In case of failure 6 to surrender by petitioner on stipulated date, the District Magistrate/jail authority shall proceed in accordance with law.
A copy of this order be sent to the petitioner through jail authority for compliance. No costs. That apart copy of the order may be sent to the Director General of Police, Jaipur for necessary compliance and action to be taken against the defaulting persons.
(DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI),J. (AJAY RASTOGI),J. A.kumar/