Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bahadur Singh vs State & Ors on 27 April, 2018
Bench: Sangeet Lodha, Virendra Kumar Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Writs No. 80 / 2018
Bahadur Singh ----Petitioner
Versus
State & Ors ----Respondent
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K.R.Bhati
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K.Vyas, AAG cum Govt.Advocate
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR Order 27/04/2018 This petition seeking release on permanent parole in terms of Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 ("Rules of 1958"), is filed by the life convict Bahadur Singh who has already undergone the sentence of imprisonment for more than 14 years without remission.
The application preferred by the petitioner seeking permanent parole has been rejected by the State Level Parole Committee observing that the petitioner while staying in Open Air Camp, absconded on 3.1.15 and returned to the Open Air Camp on 4.1.15 and for this reason, a case was registered against him wherein on being convicted, he was sentenced to suffer six months imprisonment. The convict again absconded from Open Air Camp on 12.8.15 and was arrested on 19.8.15. Again a criminal case being No.3697/15 (1061/15) was registered against the convict for offence under Section 224 IPC wherein he was convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for 9 months.
(2 of 4) [CRLW-80/2018] That apart, on being release on first parole for 20 days for the period from 10.9.10 to 29.9.10, on expiry of parole period, the convict surrendered with a day's delay on 30.9.10.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has furnished plausible explanation for his absence from the Open Air Camp for the period specified and therefore, without considering the explanation furnished by the convict, the State Level Parole Committee could not have rejected the application seeking permanent parole by merely recording its ipse dixit. Learned counsel submitted that Rule 14 of the Rules of 1958 which deals with "Ineligibility for release of the prisoners", the word "ordinarily" used clearly indicates that for the prisoners falling in the categories specified under Clause (a) to (d) of the Rule 14 of the Rules of 1958, the bar contained is not absolute. Learned counsel submitted that the expression "unless" used after the conditions (a) to (d) specified, denotes that person falling in any of the category (a) to (d) cannot be considered for release on parole unless they have undergone 1/4 of the sentence including remission and release on parole can take place only after Superintendent of Jail recommends the case in consultation with the District Magistrate with special reasons therefor. Learned counsel submitted that while determining the ineligibility for release in case of categories specified under Clause (a) to (d) of Rule 14 of the Rules of 1958, the State Level Parole Committee is under obligation to apply its mind and any mitigating circumstance has to be taken into consideration. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon a Bench decision of this Court in (3 of 4) [CRLW-80/2018] the matter of Mohan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan 2002 (1) Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 460, wherein this Court while considering Rule 14 of the Rules of 1958 held :-
"5. The use of negative expression, qualified with word "Ordinarily" coupled with providing conditions in which conditions for exception to ordinarily envisaged prohibition has been stated, leaves no room of doubt that R.14 does not create an absolute bar against considering the applications for release on parole by a convict who falls in any of the category mentioned in Cl. (a) to (d) of R.14. Words of R.14 are expression with "ordinarily" and the conditions for release of the persons, who have been named in Cl. (a) & (b) are to be considered only on conditions specified in the later part of the said rule.
6. The expression "unless" denotes that the persons falling in any of the category (a) to (d) cannot be considered for release on parole, unless they have undergone 1/4 of the sentence including remission and release on parole can take place only if Superintendent of Jail recommends the case in consultation with the District Magistrate with special reasons therefor.
7. In parenthesis R.14 read like this that the class of persons enumerated in Cls. (a) to (d) will ordinarily be not eligible for release on parole unless they have undergone 1/4 of the sentence including remission and the Superintendent of Jail recommends the case in consultation with the District Magistrate with special reasons therefor.
8. This conveys that ordinarily the class of prisoners
(a) to (d) will not be eligible for release on parole but if they have undergone 1/4 of the sentence including remission the application for release on parole becomes liable to be considered. Such consideration which must take place by the Superintendent of Jail in consultation with District Magistrate, if on such consideration the Jail Superintendent finds that there exist any special reason to release a person falling in category (a) to (d) of R.14, such convict applicant can be released on parole, otherwise not.
9. Thus, there is no absolute impediment in considering the application for release of persons falling in category (a) to (d), after they have undergone 1/4 of the sentence, providing for such release on parole, exist to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent in consultation with the District Magistrate. If the two authorities in consultation, agree that the special reasons exist for release of any person falling in the category (a) to (d) on parole after completion of their 1/4 sentence, ordinarily such (4 of 4) [CRLW-80/2018] parole cannot be refused."
(Emphasis supplied) Thus, as laid down by this Court in Mohan Lal's case (supra), the inhibition contained in Rule 14 of the Rules of 1958 in the matter of grant of parole to the life convict cannot operate as absolute bar and the application preferred by the convict has to be considered on merits after due application of mind in accordance with law keeping in view the spirit of the provisions of the said rule.
Apparently, the order impugned has been passed by the State Level Parole Committee rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner without considering the explanation furnished by the petitioner regarding his escape from the Open Air Camp for a short period. In this view of the matter, the order impugned is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
Accordingly, the parole petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 28.12.17 passed by the State Level Parole Committee rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking permanent parole is quashed. The State Level Parole Committee is directed to consider the application preferred by the petitioner for grant of permanent parole afresh, keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in Mohan Lal's case (supra) within a period of two weeks from receipt of certified copy of this order. (VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR), J. (SANGEET LODHA), J. rp12