Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dinesh vs State Of Rajasthan on 22 September, 2022
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 534/2020 Dinesh, S/o Kalu Rot B/c Meena, Mehuto Ka Padla Police Thana Sagwara, Dist. Dungarpur (Raj.). (Central Jail, Udaipur).
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Home Jaipur.
2. Collector, Dungerpur.
3. Superintendent, Central Jail, Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R. K. Charan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Joshi, GA cum AAG
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
22/09/2022
1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for obliterating the condition of furnishing two sureties imposed by the District Parole Committee, Jodhpur in its meeting dated 09.01.2020 while granting him second parole for 30 days.
2. The petitioner is serving the sentence for his conviction under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, 2012.
3. Inviting Court's attention towards the copy of the minutes of the meeting dated 30.01.2020 by the District Parole Committee, Jodhpur, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Committee has recommended to grant parole of 30 days to the petitioner on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two (Downloaded on 23/09/2022 at 12:39:37 AM) (2 of 3) [CRLW-534/2020] sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, which has been placed on record by the respondent- State.
4. The petitioner moved an application and prayed that he be granted second parole of 30 days in accordance with the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1958") without insisting upon condition of furnishing two sureties.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was earlier granted first parole of 20 days and after completion of the period, he had surrendered before the Jail Superintendent.
6. On the basis of communication dated 12.02.2021, learned Additional Advocate General informs that wife of the petitioner is living with three minor children and she is living in penury and earning a meagre amount of money by way of minor domestic work. It is also asserted that there is no immovable or movable property in the name of the petitioner.
7. The letter dated 12.02.2021, which supports the petitioner's cause, suggests that petitioner hails from a very poor background; he has three minor children and a wife who are living in penury.
8. In view of the facts obtaining and in the interest of justice, the petitioner's application for obliterating the condition of furnishing two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each is allowed.
9. The petitioner shall be released on 30 days parole upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- to the satisfaction of the concerned Jail, Superintendent (without insisting upon furnishing two solvent sureties). (Downloaded on 23/09/2022 at 12:39:37 AM)
(3 of 3) [CRLW-534/2020]
10. Apart from the usual conditions, it is hereby ordered that the petitioner will neither meet nor try to come in the immediate vicinity of the prosecutrix or her family members.
11. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Udaipur shall be at liberty to impose other adequate and reasonable conditions to ensure return of the convict to the custody after availing the parole. The term of parole shall be computed from the date of his actual release.
(DINESH MEHTA),J 146-A.Arora/-
(Downloaded on 23/09/2022 at 12:39:37 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)