Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt Veena Ben vs State on 25 October, 2018
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Writs No. 272/2018
Smt Veena Ben W/o Shri Mehul Kumar Panchal, Aged About 24
Years, B/c Panchal Lohar, R/o Sanskar Society Malan, P.s.
Palanpur, Dist. Banaskanta (Gujrat) (Convict/prisoner Magul
Kumar Panchal S/o Sh. Narayan Bhai Presentoy Lodged In
Central Jail Jodhpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State, Through Secretary, Department Of Home,
Secretariat, Raj., Jaipur
2. Union Of India, Through Secretary Of Home Department
3. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. KR Bhati
For Respondent(s) : Mr. VS Rajpurohit, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order 25/10/2018
1. This criminal parole writ petition under Section 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the wife of Convict Mehula Kumar Panchal claiming the following relief :-
"It is, therefore, must humbly and respectfully prayed that this parole writ petition may kindly be allowed and the convict prisoner Mahul Kumar Panchal S/o Shri Narayan Bhai presently lodged in Central Jail Jodhpur may kindly be released on parole for a period of 15 days from the date of his release."
2. Brief facts of this case, as noticed by this Court, are that the petitioner's husband was convicted for the offence under (2 of 4) [CRLW-272/2018] Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act, and has been sentenced to undergo 12 years' rigorous imprisonment along with fine stipulated. The petitioner's husband (convict / prisoner) has filed an appeal against his conviction, which is pending before this Hon'ble Court. The petitioner's husband has already undergone the sentence for more than three years.
3. The factum of three years of imprisonment is refuted in the reply filed by the prosecution, and thus, the basic information given in the petition by the petitioner is wrong, as the learned Public Prosecutor in his reply has provided the detail which indicates that the petitioner's husband while under trial remained in custody for 7 months and 14 days. In the reply of the prosecution, it has been stated that after award of the sentence, the petitioner's husband served 11 months and 27 days of imprisonment, and therefore, in totality, the petitioner's husband has undergone only 1 year, 7 months and 11 days of imprisonment. Since the petitioner has not come with clean hands before this Court, therefore, he does not deserve any consideration for grant of parole. However, even if seen on the merits of the case then also the provision governing the Central Law of NDPS Act is the Gazette Notification issued by Ministry of Home Affairs on 09.11.1955, which reads as follows :-
"MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS New Delhi-2, the 9th November, 1955 S.R.O. 3491 :- In exercise of the power conferred by sub Section (6) of section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898), the Central Government hereby makes the following rules :-
I. Where a petition for suspension of the execution of a sentence of imprisonment or for remission of the whole (3 of 4) [CRLW-272/2018] or part of a sentence of imprisonment is made by or on behalf of a person sentenced to imprisonment for an offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends and the person sentenced to such sentence of imprisonment is in Jail, the execution of the sentence shall be suspended and such person released on parole, subject to the conditions specified in rule 3, for such period, not exceeding fifteen days, as may be necessary for obtaining the orders of the Central Government on the petition, if the State Government of the State in which such person is detained in jail is satisfied that the immediate release of such person on parole is rendered necessary by reason of any illness constituting a grave threat to the life of such person or of a parent, wife, husband or child of such person.
II A State Government ordering a release on parole under rule 1 shall forthwith report the full facts and circumstances of the case to the Central Government while forwarding the petition to the Central Government and the Central Government may on consideration of the report and petition make such order as they deem fit. III A person released on parole under rule 1 shall enter into a bond undertaking to reside during the period of his parole at a place specified therein and not depart therefrom without the previous permission of the State Government and to return to the jail in which he is confined on expiry of the period of his parole, and to conform to such order conditions as the State Government may consider necessary."
3. On examination of merits of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner has shown the certificate of gynecologist showing that petitioner is required to be operated for Hysterectomy. However, the Gazette Notification of 1955 provides for the release only on the ground of illness constituting a grave (4 of 4) [CRLW-272/2018] threat to the life, which is not reflected in the certificate as well as the illness indicated.
4. Thus, no interference is called for in the present criminal parole petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, it is needless to say that if any occasion arises, the petitioner shall be at liberty to move fresh parole petition.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J sudheer Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)