Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Bajeer Husain vs State (Home Department)Ors on 27 September, 2012
Author: Alok Sharma
Bench: Alok Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH ORDER S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION (PAROLE) NO.12272/2011 (Bajeer Husain Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.) Date of Order : 27.09.2012 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA Mr. Lakhan Singh Tomar, for the petitioner. Mr. Pradeep Srimal, Public Prosecutor. BY THE COURT
By this petition, the petitioner through his cousin brother Salman Khan has prayed for grant of first parole.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was convicted and sentenced for ten years rigorous imprisonment for the offences under Sections 395, 397, 342, 450 IPC, vide judgment dated 22.12.2008 passed in Sessions Case No.35/2005, by the Additional District Judge, (Fast Track) No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Against the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner filed a criminal appeal No.288/2009 which was partly allowed by the Court on 19.09.2011 during the pendency of this petition reducing his sentence from ten years to seven years of rigorous imprisonment. It has been submitted that the petitioner has undergone more than four years of incarceration in the criminal case standing concluded with the conviction by the appellate court under order dated 19.09.2011 whereby the petitioner is to suffer seven years imprisonment. It is submitted that the petitioner applied for first parole under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (hereinafter 'the Rules of 1958'). However, the said application has been arbitrarily rejected vide order dated 27.09.2011 in a casual manner.
3. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that that the nominal roll dated 04.11.2011 submitted by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur, with the reply to the petition as annexure R/1 shows that the conduct of the petitioner in jail is satisfactory. Counsel submits that there was no material before the District Magistrate, Bareli, Uttar Pradesh to express an apprehension that if the petitioner were to be released on parole, he was likely to be abscond. Counsel further submits that in the certificate issued by the Sarpanch, Village Boonchi, Post Shishgarh, Tehsil Morganj, it has been stated that the petitioner has an aged mother, sister and wife who are unattended for the last several years as his father has already expired. It is also stated in the certificate that the conduct of the petitioner in the village at the time when he was living there was good and that the petitioner has no dispute in the village. Counsel submits that the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Om Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan [RLW 2002 (2) Raj 712] has already held that Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 in making a discrimination in the matter of grant of parole on count of geographical consideration was ultra vires of the Article 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India and therefore struck down the Rule 14(a). It is submitted that merely because the petitioner is a resident of Bareli, it is no way supplies a legally valid ground for refusal of the grant of first parole under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958. It is submitted that the ipse dixit of the District Magistrate, Bareli about the possibility of the petitioner absconding without any plausible ground in support thereof could not cloud out the petitioner's valuable right under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958 for grant of parole.
4. Mr. Pradeep Shrimal, the learned Public Prosecutor, has opposed the parole on the ground that the petitioner is a resident of Bareli, U.P. and a report from the District Magistrate indicates that in the event the petitioner were to be released on parole, he is likely to be abscond. It is further submitted that in the course of his incarceration, the petitioner had refused from time to time to undertake the work assigned to him. The Public Prosecutor has submitted that for the aforesaid reasons, the Advisory Board has taken a decision not to grant parole.
5. I have heard rival submissions and scanned the material available on record.
6. Parole is a beneficial provision for allowing convicts stay social by facilitating familial connect during incarceration and overcome dehumanisation resulting from continual isolation. Family connection keeps social links intact. The social links are the best safeguard against waywardness. Parole should not be and cannot be denied on mere apprehension such as expressed by the District Magistrate, Bareli without any foundational fact and reason. The jail report qua the petitioner is positive. The petitioner has a wife, sister and an old widowed mother. There is no persuasive material on record to warrant denial of parole to the petitioner.
7. Since the petitioner has served sentence for a period of more than four years, I am of the view that he is entitled to be released on first parole under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958.
8. I, therefore, allow this petition. The Jail Authorities are directed to release the petitioner Bajeer Husain S/o Sardar Husain on first parole under Rule 9 of the Parole Rules for a period of 20 days, provided, the petitioner furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur on usual terms and condition as determined by him. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the jail authorities on expiry of the period of twenty days from the date of his release on parole.
(ALOK SHARMA), J MS/-
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Manoj Solanki, Jr. P.A