Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Karu Lal @ Suraj vs State Of Rajasthan on 25 June, 2020

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati, Rameshwar Vyas

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 258/2020

Karu Lal @ Suraj S/o Shri Banshi Lal, Aged About 40 Years, At
Present Lodged In Open Air Camp, Sanganer, Jaipur Through His
Father Banshi Lal S/o Harnarayan Ji, Age About 70 Years, R/o
Choti Sadri, P.s. Choti Sadri, District Pratapgarh.
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
1.      State     Of    Rajasthan,         Through         Secretary    Of   Home
        Department Jaipur (Raj.).
2.      The District Collector, Pratapgarh.
3.      The Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur.
                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. KR Bhati on video call
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Abhishek Purohit AAAG on video
                                  call for Mr. Farzand Ali, GA cum AAG



     HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS Order 25/06/2020

1. In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, lawyers have been advised to refrain from coming to the Courts.

2. Defects pointed out by the office stand overruled.

3. This criminal parole writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for claiming the relief:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this criminal parole writ petition may kindly be allowed and the convict prisoner Karulal @ Suraj S/o Shri Banshi Lal, At present lodged in Open Air Camp, Sanganer, Jaipur (Downloaded on 25/06/2020 at 08:24:46 PM) (2 of 2) [CRLW-258/2020] may kindly be released on permanent parole on his personal bond due to lockdown COVID-19."

4. Vide order dated 5.6.2020 passed by the District Parole Committee, Barmer, the present petitioner was granted permanent parole upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each.

5. The grievance of the petitioner is that looking to his social and economical condition he is not in a position to avail two sureties, as required and, thus, prayed that he may be released on furnishing personal bond.

6. Having considered all the facts and circumstances of case, this Court is satisfied that to meet the ends of justice it shall be appropriate to grant permanent parole to the petitioner if he submits a personal bond in a tune of Rs.50,000/- to the satisfaction of the competent authority.

7. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant permanent parole to the petitioner if he furnishes personal bond to the tune of Rs.50,000/- only. The condition for furnishing two sureties stands waived. (RAMESHWAR VYAS),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 11-SPhophaliya/-

(Downloaded on 25/06/2020 at 08:24:46 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)