Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Anil Kumar @ Kaley S/O Shri Om Prakash vs State Of Rajasthan on 2 February, 2023
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari, Anil Kumar Upman
?HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Criminal Writ Petition(Parole) No. 381/2022
Anil Kumar @ Kaley S/o Shri Om Prakash, Aged About 33 Years,
R/o 296/9, Subhash Nagar Gurugram, Police Station City
Gurugram, District Gurugram (Haryana) (At Present Confined In
Open Air Camp Alwar) Through His Wife- Smt. Ram Bala W/o
Shri Anil Kumar @ Kaley, Aged About 32 Years, R/o 296/9,
Subhash Nagar Gurugram, Police Station City Gurugram, District
Gurugram (Hariyana)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Home, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Prisons, Directorate Prison,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Alwar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.R. Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Gurjar, Assistant Govt.
Advocate
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Order
02/02/2023
1. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition(parole) with the prayer that petitioner be granted permanent parole under Rule 10 of Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021.
2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner's application for permanent parole was rejected by the State Parole Advisory Committee vide Annexure-1. It is also contended that ground for rejection of the prayer for permanent parole was on account of petitioner being convicted for the offence under Section (Downloaded on 07/02/2023 at 12:28:50 AM) (2 of 4) [CRLW-381/2022] 364 of IPC and that there is bar under Rule 16(2)(b) of Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021(hereinafter referred as Rules, 2021).
3. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon Hadmant Singh vs State of Rajasthan & Ors, D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.264/2022, Sabu Singh vs State of Rajasthan & Ors., D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.545/2022 and Raju @ Rajkumar vs State of Rajasthan & Ors., D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.314/2022.
4. Learned Assistant Govt. Advocate has opposed the petition. It is contended that there is specific bar under Rule 16(2)(b) of Rules, 2021.
5. We have considered the contentions and perused the relevant Rules.
6. As per the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021, Rule 16(2)(b) reads as under:-
"(2) The following categories of prisoners shall not be eligible for release on parole:-
(b) Prisoners convicted under section 326-A, 364, 364-A, 376-A, 376-B, 376-E, 396, 460 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 376 connected with 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(rape with murder)."
From perusal of same, it is evident that the above categories of prisoners are not entitled to be released on parole under new Rules.
7. Petitioner was convicted vide judgment and sentence dated 02.02.2007 and at that relevant time, Rules which were in force were the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958. Under the Rules then prevalent, Rule 9 pertained to permanent release on parole which provided that a person sentenced to life (Downloaded on 07/02/2023 at 12:28:50 AM) (3 of 4) [CRLW-381/2022] imprisonment was entitled to be released on permanent parole, if he has served 14 years of imprisonment excluding remission, but including the period of detention passed during enquiry, investigation or trial.
8. In Hitesh @ Bavko Shivshankar Dave vs State of Gujarat, Writ Petition(Criminal) No.467/2022 decided by Apex Court on 24.01.2023, the Court was dealing with entitlement of a convict for premature release. The Court observed that the policy which was prevalent on the date of conviction would apply, however, if it is subsequently liberalized to provide more beneficial terms, those should be borne in mind. In the present case in hand as per Rules prevalent on the date of conviction, petitioner would be entitled to be considered for release on permanent parole.
9. In the present case co-accused Mannu, Aman Jat, Suresh and Ashwani have already been given benefit of permanent parole, which fact has not been denied by the State.
10. In view of judgment of Hitesh @ Bavko Shivshankar Dave vs State of Gujarat(supra) and as per the Rules prevalent at the time of his conviction, petitioner is entitled to be released on permanent parole. Also, taking note of the fact that co-accused have been given benefit of permanent parole, the writ petition (parole) deserves to be allowed.
11. Consequently, the writ petition (parole) stands allowed. The recommendation of the Parole Advisory Committee-Annexure-1 qua the present petitioner is quashed. The Jail Authorities are directed to release the petitioner on permanent parole, on furnishing of his personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties (Downloaded on 07/02/2023 at 12:28:50 AM) (4 of 4) [CRLW-381/2022] of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of Superintendent, Central Jail, Alwar.
(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J (PANKAJ BHANDARI),J HEENA/04 (Downloaded on 07/02/2023 at 12:28:50 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)