Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Yukub @Kada vs State (Home Department)Ors on 21 November, 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
BENCH JAIPUR
ORDER
S.B.Civil Writ Petition (Parole) No.12943/2016
Yakub @ Kada S/o Shri Mahatab, B/c Mev, R/o Mugaska, Police
Station Pahadi, District Bharatpur (Raj) (At present confined in
Central Jail Sewar, Bharatpur)
Through his brother in law (Jeeja):- Jamil S/o Late Shri Noor
Mohammad, aged about 42 years, B/c Mev, R/o Singar, Police Station
Punhana, Tehsil Punhana, District Nooh, Mewat (Hariyana)
Vs.
1. State of Rajasthan through Inspector General, Prison, Jaipur
2. The District Parole Advisory Committee through the District
Magistrate, Bharatpur.
3. the Superintendent, Central Jail, Sewar, Bharatpur
Date of Order ::::: 21.11.2016
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR AGARWAL
Mr. Govind Prasad Rawat, for the petitioner.
Mr. Prakash Thakuria, Public Prosecutor for State.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that writ in the nature of certiorari be issued and the order dated 02.06.02016 passed by the District Magistrate, Bharatpur be quashed, whereby first parole for a period of 20 days was declined to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No.2 Deeg, District Bharatpur vide judgment and order dated 25.10.2013 in Sessions Case No.19/2012 for the offences under Sections 376(2) (g), 366-A and Section 368 IPC against which S.B. Criminal Appeal No.545/2014 is pending before the Hon'ble High Court. It was further submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since his conviction and during trial also he was behind bars and therefore, he has served a substantial part of his sentence. It was also submitted that the conduct and behaviour of the petitioner in jail has been good and unblemished and there is no complaint against him of the authorities and therefore he is entitled for regular first parole as per Rajasthan Release of Prisoners on Parole Rules, 1958 but prayer made by the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 02.06.2016 merely on the recommendation of the Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur apprehending that petitioner may abscond if released on parole. It was further submitted that no material was placed on record to substantiate the apprehension of the Superintendent of Police.
On the basis of opinion of the Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. However, he has not divulged any material to substantiate the opinion given by the Superintendent of Police.
It is well-settled that parole is granted to a convict, so that he is able to meet his family members and carry his obligations towards family. Release of convict on parole promotes tranquility, peace, prosperity, happiness and goodwill in the society. Mere assertion of the police that the convict may abscond without placing on record any material for the perusal of the Court is not sufficient. It is a mere excuse and cannot be raised in every case. Merely using argument that the convict may abscond without satisfying and placing on record any substantial material not only goes against the tenants of law but might also cause distrubance in the normal working of the society.
In the present case, except for the apprehension that if petitioner is granted parole, he may abscond, no material has been placed on record. I do not find any reason to deny parole to the petitioner.
Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is granted First Regular Parole for a period of twenty days from the date of release to the satisfaction of the Superintendent of Jail, Bharatpur.
(PRASHANT KUMAR AGARWAL), J Jyoti/-
S.No.66