Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt Gandhi Devi vs State And Ors on 13 July, 2018
Bench: Sangeet Lodha, Virendra Kumar Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Writs No. 187/2018
Smt. Gandhi Devi W/o Shri Sharwan Ram , B/c Vishnoi, R/o
Village Fitkasani, P.s. Luni, District Jodhpur Raj.
(Convict Sharwan Kumar S/o Shri Harsukh Ram, At Present
Central Jail Jodhpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary , Department Of
Home, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The District Collector , Jodhpur.
3. The Superintendent , Central Jail, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kalu Ram Bhati
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K.Vyas, AAG cum Govt.Advocate
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR Order 13/07/2018 By way of this petition, the petitioner- wife of convict Sharwan Ram s/o Harsukh Ram, has questioned the legality of the order dated 15.5.18 issued by the District Magistrate pursuant to the recommendation of the District Level Parole Advisory Committee, whereby an application preferred by the convict seeking first parole for a period of 20 days, stands rejected.
In the first instance, the proceeding initiated for grant of first parole to the convict was dropped by the District Level Parole Advisory Committee in its meeting held on 28.12.17 solely on the ground that the convict had already been extended emergent parole for a period of seven days. Aggrieved by the aforesaid (2 of 4) [CRLW-187/2018] decision of the District Level Parole Advisory Committee, the convict Sharwan Ram preferred a writ petition being D.B.Criminal Writs No.9/18 before this Court. After due consideration, this Court vide order dated 27.2.18, held that the grant of emergent parole in terms of Rule 9A of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (for short "the Rules of 1958"), cannot be a ground for denial of regular parole to the convict in terms of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958. Accordingly, the petition preferred by the convict was allowed and while setting aside the decision of the District Level Parole Advisory Committee dated 28.12.17, the said Committee was directed to consider the application of the convict for grant of parole for a period of 20 days on merits in accordance with law.
Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court as aforesaid, the application preferred by the convict seeking his release on parole for a period of 20 days was considered by the District Level Parole Advisory Committee afresh. The application has been rejected by the order impugned on the ground that the convict is main accused in Shyamlal's murder case and there exists enmity between the convict and Shyamlal's family, hence, there is a danger to his life. That apart, it is observed that earlier, the convict was released on interim bail for a period of 17 days, but he did not surrender after availing the period of interim bail. He was arrested after about two years on 24.3.11. It is further observed that during his detention in jail, in two cases registered at Police Station Samdari, Barmer and Police Station Mavli, Udaipur, charge sheets have been filed against the convict for offences under Sections 8/15, 29 NDPS Act.
(3 of 4) [CRLW-187/2018] Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that including remission, the husband of the petitioner has already undergone sentence for a period of more than 13 years. It is submitted that the apprehension regarding danger to life of the convict is not based on any material on record. Learned counsel submits that after filing of the challan in the cases under NDPS Act, the convict was released on emergent parole and after availing the parole, he had surrendered well within time.
Learned Government advocate has opposed the grant of parole on the grounds stated in the order impugned, however, fairly submitted that the conduct of the convict during his stay in jail is reported to be good.
We have considered the rival submissions.
It is not disputed before us that after surrender in the year 2011, the convict was extended emergent parole for a period of seven days and after availing the emergent parole, he surrendered before the Superintendent of Jail well within time and thus, earlier incident of the convict absconding cannot be made basis for rejection of the prayer for release on parole admissible under the Rules of 1958. It is also not disputed that in the cases registered against the convict under the provisions of NDPS Act, he has already been granted bail. The apprehension expressed by the District Level Parole Advisory Committee regarding danger to convict's life does not appear to be based on any material on record.
Thus, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the District Level Parole Advisory Committee was not justified in rejecting the application preferred by the convict for release on first parole for a period of 20 days.
(4 of 4) [CRLW-187/2018] Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 15.5.18 issued by the District Magistrate, District Parole Advisory Committee, Jodhpur is set aside. The convict-Sharwan Ram s/o Harsukh Ram may be released on first parole for a period of 20 days on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each on reasonable terms and conditions to be determined by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur, for the security of the convict so also to ensure his return to jail after availing the parole. (VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR),J (SANGEET LODHA),J rp11 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)