Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Akhedas vs State Of Raj on 16 January, 2014
Author: Govind Mathur
Bench: Govind Mathur
1
D.B.CIVIL PAROLE WRIT PETITION NO.14675/2013
AKHEDAS V/S STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
***
DATE OF ORDER 16.01.2014 HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR,J HON'BLE MR. ATUL KUMAR JAIN ,J By Post Mr. K.R. Bishnoi, Government Counsel A letter addressed to this court by convict-prisoner Akhedas S/o Shri Jai Singh, By caste Jat, presently lodged at Central Jail, Jodhpur is treated as petition for writ.
Factual matrix of the case necessary to be noticed is that the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 Indian Penal Code under judgement dated 23.8.2003 passed by the Additional Session Judge (Fast Track), Pali. He was sentenced to undergo life term imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/-. The petitioner has already served sentence for a period of 15 years, 19 months and 21 days as on 31.12.2013 including Jail remission for a period of 01 year, 08 months and 10 days and State remission for a period of 01 year and 10 months.
The District Parole Advisory Committee, Jodhpur considered the case of the petitioner for grant of 20 days 2 first regular parole in its meeting dated 28.11.2013. The Committee after considering the jail conduct of the accused, deemed it proper to award first regular parole subject to furnishing of two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each and a personal bond of the same amount. As per the petitioner he is not in a position to furnish the required sureties. Thus, he has claimed for grant of parole by furnishing a personal bond only.
We have considered the claim made by the petitioner by examining all relevant facts. The petitioner is an old man of 60 years and he has already served actual sentence for a period of 12 years, 03 months and 11 days as on 31.12.2013. In this entire period, he has not availed even a single parole, though he became eligible for the same after completing one fourth part of the sentence awarded. It appears that the case of the petitioner for grant of parole was not considered earlier due to non availability of the necessary remarks from the District Administration of the District to which he belongs. In the totality , the petitioner failed to have even first regular parole for the reason that he belongs to the State of U.P. and further, he is coming from a very weak economic background. It is 3 well settled that the convict-prisoner should not be failed to have statutory parole for the reason that he is not having sufficient economic background to satisfy the conditions imposed by the District Parole Advisory Committee.
Having considered the entire socio-economic background of the petitioner, we deem it proper to accept this petition for writ with a direction to the respondents to release the petitioner on first parole, provided he furnishes a surety of Rs.25000/- and a personal bond of the same amount.
The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. (ATUL KUMAR JAIN),J. (GOVIND MATHUR),J. Anil Singh/29 4