Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur

Hafiz Abdul Majeed S/O Kallu Khan vs State Of Rajasthan on 30 October, 2019

Author: Pankaj Bhandari

Bench: Pankaj Bhandari

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

         S.B. Criminal Writ Petition (Parole) No. 628/2019

Hafiz Abdul Majeed S/o Kallu Khan, R/o Punniya Khari Ps Jhawar
Dist. Jalawarh Raj. Presently Lodged In Central Jail Jaipur Raj.
Through His Brother Kayyum Khan S/o Kallu Khan Aged About
56 Years R/o Poonya Khedi Punya Kher Jhalawad Raj.
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.     State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.     The Superintendent Central Jail, Jaipur
3.     The Dist. Parole Advisory Committee Through The Distt.
       Magistrate Jaipur, Raj.
                                                                  ----Respondents
For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Nishant Vyas
For State                  :     Mr. Arvind Bhadu, PP



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

                           Judgment / Order

30/10/2019

1. Petitioner has preferred this Criminal Writ Petition seeking parole for 20 days.

2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was convicted under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967. He was sentenced to life imprisonment by the Court below. In Appeal preferred by the petitioner before the High Court, the sentence was reduced to 14 years. Petitioner has remained in confinement for a period of more than nine years.

3. State has filed reply. It is contended by learned Public Prosecutor that Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958, does not apply to persons who are sentenced for an offence (Downloaded on 05/11/2019 at 08:49:48 PM) (2 of 3) [CRLW-628/2019] against any law relating to any matter to which executive power of the Union of India extends and that such person shall be governed by the Central Rules made under Notification of the Government of India.

4. It is also contended that petitioner's conduct in jail was not proper. It is argued by counsel for the petitioner that though the sentence has been passed under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 but the investigation was done by the State Police and such objection was also raised before the Division Bench, hence, petitioner is entitled to parole under the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules. In the alternative, it is argued that if Authorities before whom parole application has been filed are of the view that parole application is not maintainable, they should forward the application to the Authorities empowered.

5. Counsel for the petitioner in this respect has placed reliance on "Dr. Habib Ahmed Khan vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Criminal Writ Petition (Parole) No.218/2019) decided by Division Bench of the High Court on 04.06.2019."

6. I have considered the contentions.

7. Sub-Clause (c) of Section 1 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules excludes the applicability of the Rules to persons who are sentenced for an offence against any law relating to any matter to which executive power of the Union of India extends. Merely because, the State Police has investigated the matter, would not bring the case of the petitioner within the purview of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules. In reply, the State has not mentioned that the application filed by the petitioner stands rejected. The only objection raised is that application is not maintainable in view of Sub-Clause (c) of (Downloaded on 05/11/2019 at 08:49:48 PM) (3 of 3) [CRLW-628/2019] Section 1 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules. This Court is also of the considered view that application is not maintainable before the Parole Advisory Committee as per Sub- Clause (c) of Section 1 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules.

8. However, keeping the matter pending and not intimating the accused of the result, cannot be appreciated. The proper course available to the Authorities was to refer the application to the Union of India to pass appropriate orders or to intimate the applicant to move the Union of India.

9. Criminal Writ Petition is dismissed as not maintainable.

10. Petitioner is free to approach the Union of India.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J AMIT KUMAR /41 (Downloaded on 05/11/2019 at 08:49:48 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)