Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Laxman Alias Nanya vs State (Home Department)Anr on 22 April, 2013
Author: Mohammad Rafiq
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION (PAROLE) No.2873/2013. Laxman @Nanya Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Date of order : April 22, 2013. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA Shri Sumer Singh for the petitioner. Smt.Rekha Madnani, Government Counsel. ****** BY THE COURT:-
This writ petition has been filed by petitioner Laxman @Nanya challenging the order dated 3/1/2013 passed by the respondents whereby, request of the petitioner for his release on permanent parole under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (for short, the Rules of 1958) has been declined.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that State Parole Committee has declined the request of the petitioner for his release on permanent parole on the ground of adverse police report as also the fact that he after availing of 7th regular parole, has surrendered back on 4/6/2012 and eleven months have not elapsed from that date as per requirement of Rule 10 of the Rules of 1958. Learned counsel submitted that adverse police report given by the Superintendent of Police dated 26/4/2012 is absolutely unfounded. Petitioner not only has availed 7th regular parole but he is residing in open air camp for a quite long time. There is no complaint about conduct of the petitioner. Whenever he visited his house on parole, he surrendered back in time. The jail authorities have also certified his conduct to be good. Social Welfare Department has recommended for release of the petitioner on permanent parole. Learned counsel submitted that Rule 10 of the Rules of 1958 is applicable for the regular parole so that there should be a time gap of minimum eleven months between the earlier and the next parole but that restriction is not applicable to the release on permanent parole. Learned counsel relied on the Division Bench judgment of the Principal Seat at Jodhpur in D.B. Civil Writ Petition (Parole) No.8293/2012 (Amar Singh @Amarlal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) in support of his argument. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that petitioner has earlier approached this Court for his release on permanent parole by filing writ petition, which was registered as D.B. Civil Writ Petition (Parole) No.7793/2012 and this Court vide order dated 18/5/2012 (Ann.1) directed the respondents to consider and decide the application of the petitioner for his release on permanent parole.
Learned Government Counsel has opposed the petition and submitted that Rule 10 of the Rules of 1958 has deliberately provided for keeping the distance of eleven months between the earlier and the next parole. She has further submitted that the Superintendent of Police has also given adverse report and did not recommend release of the petitioner on permanent parole. Present petition be therefore dismissed.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Counsel and perused the material available on record.
Petitioner is seeking his release on permanent parole under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958, which reads as under:-
9. Parole Period. - A prisoner, who has completed with remission, if any, [one fourth] of his sentence and subject to good conduct in the Jail, may be released on Ist parole for 20 days including days of journey to home and back, and for 30 days on 2nd parole provided his behaviour has been good during Ist parole and for 40 days on third parole provided his behaviour has been good during the second parole. If during the third parole also the prisoner has behaved well and his character has been exceedingly well and if the prisoner's conduct has been such that he is not he is not likely to replace into crime, his case may be recommended to the Government through the [State Committee] for permanent release on parole on such conditions as deemed fit by the Superintendent Jail and the District Magistrate concerned; the Chief condition among them being that if the prisoner while on parole commits any offence or abets, directly or indirectly, commission of any offence, he has to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence in addition to any sentence imposed upon him by reason of such an offence. In case the permanent release on parole is rejected, the prisoner will be eligible for release on parole for 40 days every year subject to the same conditions for the remaining period of his sentence;
[Provided that cases of prisoners who have been sentenced to imprisonment for life, for an offence for which death penalty is one of the punishments provided by law or who have been sentenced to death but this sentence has been commuted under section 433 of Code of Criminal Procedure into one of life imprisonment shall not be placed before the State Committee for permanent release on parole unless he has served 14 years of imprisonment excluding remission, but including the period of detention passed during enquiry, investigation or trial. Such prisoners may be released on parole for 40 days every year for the remaining period of their sentence subject to the conditions stated above.] Prayer of the petitioner is resisted by the respondents citing Rule 10 of the Rules of 1958, which inter-alia provides, as under:-
10. Once in eleven months. - No second and subsequent release on parole shall be made unless eleven months have elapsed from the date of the expiry of the period of release on parole immediately preceding.
No doubt, Rule 19 has provided that no second and subsequent release on parole shall be made unless eleven months have elapsed from the date of the expiry of the period of release on parole immediately preceding but that rule is interpreted by various Division Bench judgments of this Court, to mean that requirement of keeping a gap of 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. Reference in this connection may be made to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ (Parole) Petition No.5152/2012 (Suraj Giri Vs. State & Ors.), D.B. Civil Writ (Parole) Petition Nos.12177/2011 (Harji Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) & D.B. Civil Writ (Parole) Petition No.4938/2012 (Baggad Singh @Jalandhar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.).
It is surprising that respondents have been mechanically rejecting the application of the prisoners for their release on permanent parole citing Rule 10 to say that period of eleven months has not elapsed from the date of their release on earlier parole, whereas this Court at Principal Seat at Jodhpur in D.B. Civil Writ Petition (Parole) No.8293/2012 (Amar Singh @Amarlal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) vide order dated 13/9/2012 has called for the explanation of the of the Director General (Prisons) as to why proceedings may not be initiated against him for not making compliance of the directions of this Court in several cases by not applying the provisions of Rule 10 of the Rules of 1958 while considering the case of grant of permanent parole. It is quite surprising that despite this taking serious note of the fact whereby, the Director General (Prisons) was called upon to remain personally present on 28/9/2012, the State Parole Committee, which consists of Director General (Prisons) apart from others, has again rejected prayer of the petitioner for his release on permanent parole illegally citing Rule 10 of the Rules of 1958. This shows how mechanically the State authorities have been dealing with the matters of parole without having regard to the repeated judgments passed by this Court.
It is all the more surprising because Amar Singh @Amarlal supra in whose case aforesaid judgment was delivered by the Principal Seat of this Court at Jodhpur dated 13/9/2012 happens to be brother of the accused petitioner herein and both of them were convicted by a common judgment dated 25/8/1999 passed in Sessions Case No.121/1998 by the learned Additional District Judge, Ramganj Mandi, District Kota.
We deprecate the conduct of the jail authorities in mechanically dealing with such matters. We call upon the Director General (Prisons) Rajasthan to file his affidavit as to why the action may not be initiated against him for the deliberate and willful contempt of the judgment of this Court.
We however direct that appropriate order shall be passed for grant of permanent parole of the petitioner forthwith within a period of ten days. Let a notice be sent to the Director General (Prisons) Rajasthan, Jaipur.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. A copy of this order be also sent to the Director General (Prisons) Rajasthan, Jaipur for compliance.
Separate contempt proceedings be registered against Director General (Prisons) Rajasthan, Jaipur.
(NISHA GUPTA), J. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil/34
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being e-mailed Anil Kumar Goyal Sr.P.A. Cum J