Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kishan Bahadur vs State Of Raj on 9 December, 2013
Author: Govind Mathur
Bench: Govind Mathur
-1-
DB Civil Writ (Parole) Petition No.12880/2013
Kishan Bahadur
v.
State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Date of Order :: 9th December, 2013
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA
Mr. K.R.Bhati, for the petitioner.
Mr. K.R.Bishnoi, Government Advocate for the respondents.
....
REPORTABLE A letter addressed to this Court by convict prisoner Shri Kishan Bahadur son of Om Bahadur, resident of Salli Kharak, District Pyuthan Rapti, Nepal, presently lodged at Central Jail, Bikaner, for grant of permanent parole under the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (for short 'the Rules of 1958'), is treated as a petition for writ.
The Deputy Inspector General Prisons, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, under an order dated 26.9.2013, refused for grant of permanent parole to the petitioner on the count that as per Rule 14(a) of the Rules of 1958 a convict prisoner, who is ordinarily not a resident of Rajasthan, should not be released on permanent parole. The petitioner being resident of Nepal is not eligible for grant of parole in view of the provision aforesaid.
Suffice to mention here that the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Anoopgarh, District Sriganganagar by judgment dated 6.2.2002 in Sessions Case -2- No.128/2001 convicted the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 450 Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to undergo life term imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000/- against the conviction recorded for the offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. Consequently, he is serving the same at Central Jail, Bikaner. He has already served actual sentence for a period of 14 years and 16 days as on 22.10.2013.
A convict prisoner ordinarily acquires eligibility to have permanent parole on completing actual term of 14 years imprisonment. This term has already been satisfied by the petitioner, however, in light of Rule 14
(a) of the Rules of 1958, he cannot be released on permanent parole. Rule aforesaid is a directory one and being so, deviation from that is permissible in special circumstances.
The residents of Nepal are having a special status in India vis-a-vis the other foreign nationals. On 31.7.1950 the Government of Indian and Government of Nepal signed the "Treaty of Peace and Friendship". Article 7 of this Treaty states that "the Government of India and Government of Nepal agree to grant, on a reciprocal basis, to the nationals of one country in the territories of other, the same privileges in the matter of residence, ownership of property, participation in trade and commerce and other privileges of similar nature". The Article 7 (ibid) also provides that the Nepal citizens have all the rights of an Indian citizen. The citizen of Nepal do not require visa to enter India and there is no need even -3- to have passport, though valid identification is required. The Government of India and the Government of Nepal also signed a Treaty of Extradition and Article III clause (17) of that provides for grant of extradition of a person escaping from custody while undergoing punishment after conviction for certain offences including murder.
In view of the special status available to the Nepal citizens, their cases for grant of parole are required to be considered on a different footing vis-a-vis the cases of the same nature relating to the other foreign nationals.
In the case in hand the accused was convicted for an offence punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 450 Indian Penal Code. In all the offences aforesaid the Treaty of Extradition is applicable. If parole is granted to the petitioner, then he will avail the same with certain conditions and in violation of those conditions necessary action can very well be taken against him in view of the clause (17) of Article III of the Treaty of Extradition as the parole is nothing but relaxation in custody as an interim measure.
In view of the discussions made above, the case of the petitioner deserves to be considered at par with Indian citizens and we do not find any impediment in grant of permanent parole to him. Accordingly, the petition for writ is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant permanent parole to the petitioner provided he furnishes one surety of Rs.25,000/- and personal bond of the same -4- amount to the satisfaction of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Bikaner.
(BANWARI LAL SHARMA),J. (GOVIND MATHUR),J. kkm/ps