Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Birma vs State (Home Department)Anr on 17 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.11249/2016
Petitioner :-
Birma S/o Shri Roopa, B/C Brahman, R/O Nadanpur,
Police Station Sarmathura, District Dholpur (Raj.) (At
present confined in Central Jail, Bharatpur).
Through his wife : Smt. Kamlesh W/o Shri Birma, aged
about 48 years, b/c Brahman, R/O Nadanpur, Police
Station Sarmathura, District Dholpur (Raj.).
V E R S U S
Respondent :-
1. State of Rajasthan through Director General,
Directorate Prison, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Sewar, Bharatpur.
Date of Order : 17.11.2016
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Mr. Govind Prasad Rawat Adv., for Petitioner.
Mr. B.N. Sandu, GA-cum-AAG for respondent.
ORDER
-----
Instant petition has been filed by the convict petitioner Birma S/o Roopa seeking permanent parole u/R 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules,1958 ("Rules,1958").
The petitioner on being convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur in Sessions Case No.41/1996 vide judgment dt.21-4-1998 for offence u/S 302 IPC & 3/25 of the Arms Act, is serving life sentence at Central Jail, Bharatpur and his conviction has attained finality after rejection of his SLP by the Apex Court.
The convict petitioner submitted application seeking permanent parole u/R 9 of the Rules,1958 and the State Parole Advisory Committee in its meeting held on 6-6-2016 rejected his application on the (2) premise that he has not availed three regular parole (I,II & III) as contemplated u/R 9 of the Rules,1958 as such became eligible to avail permanent parole as reveals from the order passed by the authorities dt.18-7-2016.
The reason assigned while rejecting his application seeking permanent parole may not hold good in the light of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Suraj Giri & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2010 (2) Criminal Law Reporter (Raj.) 1567 decided on 06/10/2010 and observed in para-22 as under.
"Consequently, all these writ petitions are allowed and it is directed that:-
"(1) the cases of the petitioner/prisoners who have served requisite period of sentence and are eligible for consideration for release on permanent parole under the provisions of the Rules of 1958, their cases may be considered by the respondents and if they are found eligible for grant of permanent parole, they be released on permanent parole irrespective of the fact whether petitioners have availed the benefit of first, second and third parole or any of above paroles. This order has no application to the cases where any of the parole prayer has been rejected by the competent authority. Such person's prayer for release on permanent parole be considered on its own merit.
(2) In case prayer for permanent parole of any of the petitioners/prisoner is rejected on its merit after taking care of the observations made in this judgment then such petitioner's/prisoner's prayer for release on parole for 40 days, every year may be considered by the respondents on merit of each case.
(3) The respondents are directed to see that prisoners lodged in jail be made aware (3) about the Rules of 1958 and about their right for release on first, second and third parole.
(4) The respondents are further directed to see that parole prayers may not be rejected on flimsy grounds for which the respondents' competent authority may look into the observations made above in this judgment as well as in earlier judgments delivered by the Courts and also should take care that ineligible person may not be released on paroles. The respondents are required to examine each individual case of prisoner and while doing so should look into the judgment/order passed in the case of such individual to find out whether there is any order passed by the Court for serving of minimum actual sentence by such prisoner and also look into the fact whether while delivering judgment it has been observed that petitioner should not be released on parole at all.
(5) The respondent-State is directed to give benefit of Rajasthan Prisoner (Shortening of Sentence) Rules, 1958 to the eligible persons whenever the prisoners became eligible for the relief under the Rules of 1958 if after consideration of individual's case, the prisoner is found eligible for grant of benefit under the Rules.
(6) The respondents and in particular the Jail Authorities who are otherwise bound to maintain the record of the prisoner should carefully not only keep the record of the prisoners, but should make appropriate entries in the record of making the prisoners aware of the benefits for which they may be entitled to under the above parole rules and shortening of sentence rules.
(7) The copy of the order may be sent to the Principal Secretary, Home, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur as well as Director General (Prisoner), who may in turn, issue (4) appropriate instructions to the concerned jail authorities."
That apart in the instant case after filing of the writ petition, the convict petitioner submitted application seeking first regular parole and that has been granted to him by the District Parole Advisory Committee in its meeting held on 23-9-2016 and pursuant thereto he has availed parole for a period of 20 days & surrendered on 9-11-2016 and lodged to Central Jail, Bharatpur and it is not the case of the respondents that he has either breached or violated any of the conditions of parole granted to him.
Taking note of the submissions made, the reason assigned by the respondent rejecting his application seeking permanent parole, in our view, does not hold good and the order communicated to him dt.18-7-2016 deserves to be quashed.
Consequently, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The order impugned dt.18-7-2016 is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the State Level Advisory Committee to reconsider the matter afresh and decide his application seeking permanent parole u/R 9 of the Rules,1958 on merits within a period of two months in accordance with law.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA), J. (AJAY RASTOGI),J.
VS Shekhawat Sr.P.A. (D10)