Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Bhawani vs State (Home Department)Ors on 8 April, 2013
Author: Mohammad Rafiq
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN D.B. Civil Writ Petition (Parole) No.1971/2013 Bhawani Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others Date of Order ::: 08.04.2013 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta Shri Rajesh Choudhary, counsel for petitioner Shri Javed Choudhary, Public Prosecutor #### By the Court:-
This writ petition has been filed by petitioner through his brother Kishan Lal seeking his release on second regular parole.
Since the petitioner had completed requisite period of sentence, his case was placed before the District Parole Advisory Committee, which, however, rejected the same in its meeting held on 13.04.2010. Writ Petition (Parole) No.6631/2010 preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed on 05.08.2010. Again the petitioner's case was placed before the District parole Advisory Committee in its meeting held on 22.09.2010/06.01.2011, which again rejected the same on the ground that the Superintendent of Police, Alwar, has not recommended his case for parole. Again petitioner preferred Civil Writ Petition No.3237/2011 and this court vide order dated 28.03.2011 granted first parole for twenty days.
Petitioner has served the sentence for 9 years 2 months and 11 days including the remission as on 29.05.2012 and as such as per Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958, he is entitled to be released for thirty days on second parole provided his behaviour during first parole has been good. During the period of first parole, the behaviour of the petitioner was good and there was no complaint. He submitted an application to the authorities concerned for grant of second parole on the grounds mentioned therein. His case for second parole was recommended by the Superintendent, District Jail, Alwar, vide letter dated 29.05.2012, to the District parole Advisory Committee. Similarly, the Assistant Director, Social Justice and Empowerment Department, Alwar, vide letter dated 03.01.2013 also recommended his case for grant of parole. However, the District Parole Advisory Committee, in its meeting held on 04.01.2013, rejected his case for second parole on the ground that the Superintendent of Police, Alwar, has not recommended his case for grant of parole. The Superintendent of Police, Alwar, in his letter, without any basis, has mentioned that petitioner could not be arrested for quite some time during investigation and with great efforts, his arrest could be procured. This ground cannot be made a basis for denial of second parole to the petitioner as his conduct and behaviour during first parole and in jail remained good. It is therefore prayed that petitioner may be granted second parole.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer of parole but could not controvert the facts afore-stated.
Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the relevant papers placed on record.
This writ petition has been filed by petitioner through his brother for grant of second regular parole of thirty days. There is no adversity alleged against him even by jail authorities. During the period of first parole, there was no complaint whatsoever against him, therefore he is entitled to second parole for thirty days under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958. The District Parole Advisory Committee has rejected his case for grant of second parole on the ground that the Superintendent of Police, Alwar, has not recommended his case for grant of second parole. We do not find this to be a just and reasonable ground for refusing him grant of second parole, particularly when his conduct and behaviour during the period of first parole, remained good and there was no complaint of any kind whatsoever and on expiry of the period of first parole, he surrendered in time.
Petitioner was convicted for offence under Sections 147, 148, 448, 302, 307 and 365 IPC read with Section 3/25 of the Arms Act by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kishangarhbas, District Alwar, vide judgment dated 02.07.1988 in Sessions Case No.20/1986. On appeal being D.B. Criminal Appeal No.282/1988, this court vide judgment dated 31.01.1991 acquitted the petitioner and co-accused Hari Singh for all the charges. In S.L.P. No.421/1996 preferred on behalf of the State, the Apex Court reversed the judgment of this Court and upheld the judgment of conviction and sentence of the trial court.
When the petitioner was a free made during aforesaid period, he never got himself involved in criminal activities and no criminal case was registered, as per the petitioner. We find no justification for not releasing the petitioner on second parole.
Keeping in view the facts afore-stated and the fact that petitioner has already served about ten years of sentence by now, and that during the period of first parole, his conduct and behaviour remained good and that there is no complaint against him from the jail authorities and that they also recommended his case for grant of second parole, we are inclined to grant indulgence of second regular parole to petitioner Bhawani for a period of thirty days.
In the result, writ petition is allowed. Petitioner Bhawani S/o Shri Jai Ram shall be released on parole from the District Jail, Alwar, for a period of thirty days from the date of his release upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of respondent no.4 - the Superintendent, District Jail, Alwar, with the stipulation that he shall surrender before the jail authorities immediately after expiry of period of thirty days. The period of thirty days shall be fixed by the Superintendent of District Jail, Alwar. In case, petitioner Bhawani fails to surrender immediately after expiry of stipulated period of thirty days, the jail authorities shall immediately inform the concerned Magistrate for procuring his arrest. Petitioner Bhawani to maintain a good conduct and be of good behaviour during the period of parole and shall report to the nearest police station everyday. It will be open for the concerning jail Superintendent to put any other condition, as per Rules, to secure presence of petitioner.
Writ petition stands disposed of.
(Nisha Gupta) J. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. //Jaiman//90
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Giriraj Prasad Jaiman PS-cum-JW