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 5, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Chandansingh vs State on 14 September, 2018

Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                      JODHPUR
                    D.B. Criminal Writs No. 279/2018

Chandansingh, S/o Sh. Raghunath Singh, B/c Rajput, R/o
Gurukul Road Naya Delwara, Abu Parvat, P.s. Abu Parvat Distt.
Sirohi. (Central Jail, Jodhpur)
                                                              ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.       State, Through Secretary, Home Jaipur
2.       Collector, Sirohi
3.       Superintendent, Central Jail,
                                                           ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :   Ms. Neelam Bhardwaj
For Respondent(s)            :   Mr. S.K. Vyas, AAG-cum-GA



            HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Order 14/09/2018 A letter addressed to this Court by convict-prisoner- Chandansingh is treated as a petition for writ.

The present petition has been filed by the convict-prisoner seeking parole of 20 days'. The petitioner is undergoing sentence in Central Jail, Jodhpur for the offence under Sections 302, 326, 324 IPC and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act and Section 4/25 of Arms Act.

Reply has been filed.

The only reason for denying the parole to the petitioner is said to be the love marriage of the sister of the prisoner with the boy from another community and in the event of coming out of parole, the petitioner may commit untoward against the sister or her husband.

(2 of 2) [CRLW-279/2018] We are shocked at the reply and the reason. There is nothing on record to show that the prisoner is against the said marriage. Even if, he is, the protection of the sister of the prisoner as well as the boy to whom she got married is the responsibility of the State. Accordingly, we do not find the said reason to be sufficient to reject the parole.

It is not disputed that the convict-prisoner is otherwise entitled for the parole under the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958. The maintenance of law and order situation and to ensure the safety of the involved family is the responsibility of the State.

Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to release the petitioner to avail 20 days' first regular parole as per provisions of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules of 1958, provided he furnishes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- along with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each (Out of which one of the surety will be of close family member) to the satisfaction of Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodpur. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur shall be at liberty to impose other adequate and reasonable conditions to ensure return of the petitioner to the State custody after availing the parole. His term of parole shall be computed from the date of his actual release. (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J (NIRMALJIT KAUR),J Arvind/11 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)