Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jhandu Ram @ Moolchand vs State & Ors on 1 February, 2017
Author: P.K. Lohra
Bench: P.K. Lohra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 13392 / 2016
Jhandu Ram @ Moolchand s/o Gyanchand @ Gyanaram By caste
Oad, Rajput Resident Meharwala, Police Station Talwada
(At present lodged in Central Jail, Bikaner)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary Home
2. Collector, Hanumangarh
3. Superintendent Central Jail, Baikaner
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________
By post
For Respondent : Mr. O.P.Rathi, Dy.Government Advocate
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA
Order 01/02/2017 A letter is addressed to this Court by the convict-prisoner Jhandu Ram @ Moolchand from Central Jail, Bikaner seeking indulgence of this Court to release him on parole on personal bond.
It is borne out from the record that case of the petitioner for first regular parole was considered by the District Level Parole Committee and District Collector, Hanumangarh by its order dated 23.08.2016 granted him 30 days' second parole. While granting second parole some onerous conditions are imposed and the convict-prisoner was asked to furnish two sureties of rupees 1 lac and personal bond of Rs. 2 lacs. The convict-prisoner could not arrange the requisite sureties and therefore, the order of parole (2 of 3) [CW-13392/2016] could not be fructified for his release on parole. It is therefore, in that background, this letter is being addressed to the Court which is treated as Civil writ parole petition.
I have perused the written comments submitted by the State and the order dated 23.08.2016.
The benefit of parole is being extended to the convict prisoner as per statutory rules namely Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (for short, 'Rules of 1958'). The aims and objects for grant of parole to a convict is to encourage his good conduct and to develop a sense of feeling that he is also a member of society.
While it is true that Section 6 of the Rules of 1958 envisages conditions for release on parole but then a District Magistrate, while exercising such powers cannot be expected to impose onerous conditions which, at times, may render order nugatory and an individual may not be able to reap the fruits of the parole order.
In the instant case, I am at loss to say that the District Magistrate, while exercising its discretion to release petitioner convict on parole, has acted at its mere ipsi dixit by imposing onerous conditions and therefore, I feel persuaded to interfere in the matter so as to waive the conditions of furnishing two sureties of rupees 1 lac each.
My aforesaid view is also fortified by the order dated 05.12.2013 passed by Division Bench of this Court in D.B.Parole Writ Petition No. 13597/2013 (Ramesh Vs. State of Raj & Ors.).
(3 of 3) [CW-13392/2016] In view thereof, the writ petition is allowed and the Superintendent of Central Jail, Bikaner is hereby directed to release petitioner-convict-prisoner, Jhandu Ram @ Moolchand S/o Ghyanchand @ Gyanaram, on second parole for 30 days from the date of release upon his furnishing personal bond of rupees 2 lac to the satisfaction of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Bikaner.
It is needless to observe that petitioner-convict shall surrender before the Superintendent of Central Jail, Bikaner after availing parole for 30 days.
(P.K. LOHRA)J. Bharti/81