Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Rana @Bittu @Ravi vs State (Home Department)Ors on 25 November, 2016
Author: Ajay Rastogi
Bench: Ajay Rastogi
[1] DBCWP (PAROLE) 13731/2016
RANA @ BITTU @ RAVI Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
ORDER
D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION(PAROLE) NO.13731/2016
Rana @ Bittu @ Ravi S/o Shri Ram Kishan, age about 36 years,
resident of Badsa, Police Station Bahadurgarh, District Jhajhar,
Haryana. (at present in open air camp Sanganer, Jaipur.) through
his elder brother Ranbir Singh S/o Ram Kishan age about 48
years, resident of Badsa, Police Station Bahadurgarh, District
Jhajhar, Haryana.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary Home,
Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Deputy Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Home
Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Prisoner Parole Advisory Committee (State Committee)
through its Chairman, Director General of Prisons Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
4. Superintendent Central Jail, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
DATE:25.11.2016
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Mr. Vinay Pal Yadav, for the petitioner
Mr. Pankaj Sisodia on behalf of
Mr. B.N. Sandu(Govt. Counsel), for the respondents.
***** Instant petition has been filed by the convict-petitioner through his elder brother Ranbir Singh, who along with co- accused persons was convicted for offence u/Sec. 302, 394, 397 IPC and Sec. 3/25 of the Arms Act & sentenced to life imprisonment vide judgment dated 27.01.2003 and against which D.B. Criminal (Jail) Appeal No.227/2008 was filed which came to [2] DBCWP (PAROLE) 13731/2016 RANA @ BITTU @ RAVI Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. be dismissed on 26.03.2008 and the conviction has been upheld even by the Apex Court. It is stated that convict-petitioner has served more than 17 years, 3 months and 5 days as on 30.09.2016, which can very well reveal from the nominal roll placed on record of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur Anneuxre-R/1 and his jail conduct is also satisfactory. At the same time, it has come on record that the convict-petitioner has availed three regular paroles of 20, 30 and 40 days under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (in short, 'Rules of 1958') and after availing the period of parole, he immediately surrendered before the concerned authority and there is no breach or violation of the conditions of parole availed by him.
The application of the convict-petitioner for grant of permanent parole came to be rejected by the State Parole Advisory Committee and communicated to him vide Annexure-1 dt. 10.08.2016 on the premise that convict-petitioner belongs to Jhajjar (Haryana) and on an enquiry it reveled that he is unmarried and presently no one from his family is residing in Jhajjar (Haryana) and after disposal of their property, members of the family have shifted elsewhere. We consider it appropriate to quote the reasons assigned by the Committee for rejecting his application seeking permanent parole as under:-
"jk.kk mQZ fcV~Vw mQZ jfo iq= jkefd'ku] tkfr&czkEg.k] fuoklh&ck<lk] iqfyl Fkkuk&cgknqjx<+] ftyk&>Ttj ¼gfj;k.kk½ ¼ca-[kq-f'k- lkaxkusj½ %& ftyk/kh'k] >Ttj ,oa ftyk iqfyl v/kh{kd] [3] DBCWP (PAROLE) 13731/2016 RANA @ BITTU @ RAVI Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
>Ttj ¼gfj;k.kk½ us canh ds ifjokj dk dksbZ Hkh lnL; xkao esa jguk ugha ik;k x;k gS rFkk tehu cspdj dgha vutku txg pys x;s gSA ifjoh{kk vf/kdkjh ,oa mi v/kh{kd ftyk dkjkxkj jksgrd us canh ds ifjtuksa ds xkao esa ugha jgus vkfn ds dkj.k canh dks LFkkbZ iSjksy ij fjgk djus dh flQkfj'k ugha dh gSA Caknh }kjk vius iSjksyks ds nkSjku xkao ugha jguk crk;kA vr% ftykf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk iznRr vfHkerksa ds n`f"Vxr canh ds fuokl dk irk izekf.kr ugha gksus ls lfefr loZlEefr canh jk.kk mQZ fcV~Vw mQZ jfo iq= jkefd'ku ds LFkkbZ iSjksy ij fjgk ugha fd;s tkus dh vuq'kalk dh gSA jkT; ljdkj jkT; Lrjh; iSjksy lfefr dh vfHk'ka"kk ls lger gSA vr% canh dks LFkkbZ iSjksy ij fjgk ugh djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gSA""
After the notices of the present petition came to be served, reply has been filed and this fact has not been disputed/ controverted by the respondents regarding first, second and third parole which the convict-petitioner availed and entered into the jail within the stipulated period and during the said parole period he has not breached or violated either of the conditions of parole which he availed under the Rules of 1958.
Looking to his jail conduct which has been indicated by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur in the nominal roll placed on record and no other impediment has come on record to deny him the permanent parole, as prayed for by him and to meet out the objection which was taken note of by the State Parole Advisory Committee, to counter the brother of the convict- petitioner, Ranveer S/o Shri Ramkishan has submitted his affidavit and he has deposed in his affidavit that they are four brothers, namely Raj Singh, Ranveer Singh, Pratap @ Pradeep and Rana @ Bittu @ Ravi (present convict-petitioner) and his brother Raj Singh after retiring from Indian Army is presently [4] DBCWP (PAROLE) 13731/2016 RANA @ BITTU @ RAVI Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. residing in village Badsa. His younger brother Pratap @ Pradeep also retired from Indian Army and at present serving in Haryana Police and posted at Jhajjar (Haryana). His uncle Randheer S/o Shri chandra Ram is also residing in village Badsa and he himself, the deponent, is residing with his family which include his wife and daughter in village Badsa and he is having agriculture land and the revenue records of land holding is also on record including the Unique I.D. Card (Aadhar Card) of the address indicated by the deponent in his affidavit.
From the material it has come on record that reason assigned by the respondents for rejecting his application seeking permanent parole, certainly from the affidavit which has been filed by the brother of the convict-petitioner, is meeted out and no other objection has been raised by the Committee which could dis-entitle him from seeking permanent parole under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958.
Counsel for the petitioner further brought to our notice that co-accused Pawan Kumar s/o Balwant Singh, by caste Yadav, R/o Jafarpur Kala, Police Station Jafarpur, New Delhi(West), too was lodged in Open Jail, Bharatpur and the same State Parole Advisory Committee has granted him indulgence of permanent parole vide order dated 10.08.2016, who is also resident of New Delhi and apart from the impediment which has been indicated by the State Parole Advisory Committee, there is no other reason forthcoming which could [5] DBCWP (PAROLE) 13731/2016 RANA @ BITTU @ RAVI Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. deprive the petitioner from seeking permanent parole, as prayed for.
Consequently, the writ petition succeeds & is hereby allowed. The order dt.22.07.2016 qua petitioner stands quashed & set aside. We direct the concerned District Authority to release the convict-petitioner Rana @ Bittu @ Ravi S/o Shri Ram Kishan on permanent parole, subject to furnishing his personal bond besides one surety of Rs.25,000/- to the satisfaction of the concerned District Magistrate, that apart he shall also furnish an undertaking that in case during permanent parole, he commits any undesirable activity, he can be called upon to serve his remaining sentence, at the same time shall also maintain peace and tranquility during the parole period and will abide by any other condition imposed by the authority.
A copy of this order may be sent to the petitioner through concerned jail authority for necessary compliance. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J. (AJAY RASTOGI), J. /KKC/ (s-197)