Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Pappu Mali And Krishna Murari vs State Of Raj (Home Dept) on 28 November, 2016
Bench: Ajay Rastogi, Vinit Kumar Mathur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B.CIVIL WRIT (PARMANENT PAROLE) PETITION
NO. 13972/2016.
PAPPU MALI @ KRISHNA MURARI Son of Shri Narayan Mali,
resident of Motor Garage, Khanpur Road, Jhalawar,
P.S.Jhalawar, District Jhalawar, presently lodged in Central
Jail, Kota, through his nephew (sister's son), Shri Lalit
Suman, son of Shri Giri Raj Suman, resident of Motor
Garage, Khanpur Road, Jhalawar, P.S.Jhalawar, District
Jhalawar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary Home,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Superintendent, Central Jail, Kota.
3. Director General of Prisons, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
_______________________________________________ For Petitioner : Sh.A.S.Narang, Adv. For Respondents : Sh.Pankaj Sisodia, Counsel on behalf of Sh.B.N.Sandu, GA-
cum-AAG.
_______________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR JUDGMENT By the Court (Oral):
Date of Judgment: 28/11/2016 Instant petition has been filed by the convict-
petitioner availing without permanent parole availing first, second & third regular parole u/R.9 of the Rules, 1958.
The petitioner was convicted for offence u/Sec.302, 307 & 452 IPC vide judgment dt.18.07.2001 and sentenced (2 of 6) [CWP-13972/2016] to death penalty, however, his sentence was converted to life imprisonment on appeal being preferred by the convict-
petitioner in D.B.Criminal Death Reference No.1/2001 (Jail Appeal No.482/2011) State of Rajasthan Vs. Pappu Mali @ Krishna Murari vide judgment dt.23.11.2001. While converting the death sentence into life imprisonment, this court further directed that the convict shall not be released from jail unless he served 20 years of imprisonment including the period already undergone by him. From the nominal roll of the convict-petitioner (Annex.R/1), which has been placed on record, he has completed more than 20 years 3 months & 23 days as on 14.10.2016. The restriction which was imposed by the court while disposing the appeal vide judgment dt.23.11.2001 has been complied with by the convict-petitioner.
(3 of 6) [CWP-13972/2016] Counsel submits that earlier applications seeking permanent parole are earlier rejected by the Advisory Committee primarily on the ground that the convict- petitioner has not first availed the regular parole (first, second & third) under the Rules, 1958 and that impediment has been examined by the Division Bench of this court in the case of Suraj Giri Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2010 (4) RLW (Raj.) 3507 and it was held that there is no requirement to avail regular parole (first, second & third) under the Rules, 1958 in holding the convict to be eligible to submit the application for permanent parole. Para Nos. 20 & 21 of the judgment being relevant are reproduced ad infra:-
"20. We may observe here that it is the duty of the jail authorities to maintain the complete record of the prisoners so that their cases for release on parole may be considered by the jail authorities by initiation of proceedings for the prisoners suo motu and if needed, it is duty of the the jail authorities to obtain the application of the prisoners for their release on parole and the jail authorities should not wait for the prisoners to initiate the proceeding under the rules after completion of his requisite serving of his sentence of requisite period for grant of first, second and third parole and ultimately, for grant of permanent parole as well as consider the cases of prisoners for release on permanent parole in consonance with observations above and where case requires for premature release of the accused under the Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentences ) Rules, 1958, then to initiate proceedings for premature release so that it can be considered by the appropriate authorities in accordance with the laws applicable to the cases.
21. Consequently, all these writ petitions are allowed and it is directed that:
(1)the cases of the petitioners/prisoner who have served requisite period of sentence and are eligible for (4 of 6) [CWP-13972/2016] consideration for release on permanent parole under the provisions of the Rules of 1958, their cases may be considered by the respondents and if they are found eligible for grant of permanent parole, they be released on permanent parole irrespective of the fact whether petitioners have availed the benefit of first, second and third parole or any of above paroles. This order has no application to the cases where any of the parole prayer has been rejected by the competent authority. Such person's prayer for release on permanent parole be considered on its own merit. (2)In case prayer for permanent parole of any of the petitioners/prisoner is rejected on its merit after taking care of the observations made in this judgment then such petitioner's/prisoner's prayer for release on parole for 40 days, every year, may be considered by the respondents on merit of each case.
(3)The respondents are directed to see that prisoners lodged in jail be made aware about the Rules of 1958 and about their right for release on first, second and third parole.
(4)The respondents are further directed to see that parole prayers may not be rejected on flimsy grounds for which the respondents' competent authority may look into the observations made above in this judgment as well as in earlier judgments delivered by the courts and also should take care that ineligible person may not be released on paroles. The respondents are required to examine each individual case of prisoner and while doing so should look into the judgment/order passed in the case of such individual to find out whether there is any order passed by the court for serving of minimum actual sentence by such prisoner and also look into the fact whether while delivering judgment it has been observed that petitioner should not be released on parole at all.
(5)The respondent-State is directed to give benefit of Rajasthan Prisoner (Shortening of Sentence) Rules, 1958 to the eligible persons whenever the prisoners became eligible for the relief under the Rules of 1958 if after consideration of individual's case, the prisoner is found eligible for grant of benefit under the Rules. (6)The respondents and in particular the Jail Authorities who are otherwise bound to maintain the record of the prisoner should carefully not only keep the record of the prisoners, but should make appropriate entries in the record of making the prisoners aware of the benefits for which they may be entitled to under the above parole rules and shortening of sentence rules.
(5 of 6) [CWP-13972/2016] (7)The copy of the order may be sent to the Principal Secretary, Home, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur as well as Director General (Prisoner), who may in turn, issue appropriate instructions to the concerned jail authorities."
Counsel submits that his application is pending for permanent parole for a sufficient long time and no attention has been paid by the Advisory Board so far and that is the reason which has compelled him to file the instant writ petition.
Reply to the petition has been filed but it has not been explained as to why his application is still kept pending when he has fulfilled the rider of 20 years of sentence, after sentence being converted by this court vide judgment dt.23.11.2001 and as regards availing of regular paroles (first, second & third) is concerned, that is not the requirement for the convict-petitioner for seeking permanent parole decided by this court in the case of Suraj Giri (supra).
Counsel for petitioner submits that no further rider comes in between, at least this court can grant indulgence in seeking permanent parole when his jail conduct is found to be satisfactory which is clearly indicated from the nominal roll placed by the respondents on record.
As regards the impediment of 20 years of sentence of life imprisonment and availing regular parole (first, second & third) which have been not been availed by the convict- petitioner, that will not come in the way of the convict-
(6 of 6) [CWP-13972/2016] petitioner as an impediment in examining his application for permanent parole, prayed for by him.
Since, his application is pending consideration before the Advisory Committee, it is not advisable for this court to invoke its jurisdiction u/Art.226 of the Constitution but at the same time, this court finds substance that his application seeking permanent parole cannot be kept pending for an indefinite period and the authorities are under obligation to examine his application for permanent parole under the scheme of Rules, 1958 and pass necessary orders expeditiously.
Consequently, the instant petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to decide his application seeking permanent parole within two months.
Let copy of this order be sent to the State Parole Advisory Committee for necessary compliance, keeping in view the observations made supra.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J. (AJAY RASTOGI),J. Solanki DS, P.S.