Skip to main content
Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law
Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
It is noticed that the prisoner concerned was, otherwise,
ordered to be released on 40 days' parole upon his furnishing
two sureties in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with a personal bond in
the like amount in the meeting of the District Parole Committee
dated 02.07.2013.
Parole Petition No. 9149/2013 was decided by a co-
ordinate Bench on 25.07.2013, modifying the order passed by
the District Parole Committee and the petitioner-prisoner was
ordered to be released upon his furnishing personal bond
along with one surety. Then, Parole Petition No. 8361/2013
came to be decided by another co-ordinate Bench on
01.08.2013, now directing his release upon furnishing personal
bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- alongwith one surety in the
like amount.
The present petition is of the same prayer, i.e., seeking
release on furnishing personal bond and with reference to the
D.B. PAROLE PETITION NO. 10227/2013.
Pukhraj Vs. State of Rajasthan
// 3 //
same decision of the District Parole Committee dated
02.07.2013.
It appears that while deciding Parole Petition No.
9149/2013, the fact of pendency of Parole Petition No.
8361/2013 was not brought to the notice of the Court. Equally,
while deciding Parole Petition No. 8361/2013, the fact of
Parole Petition No. 9149/2013 having already been decided on
25.07.2013 was not brought to the notice of the Court.
To put the things straight, we consider it appropriate and
hence order that the petitioner-prisoner concerned may be
released on 40 days' parole upon his furnishing a personal
bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety in the like
amount.
Other aspects:
It is noticed that the likelihood of inconsistencies in
different orders passed in different petitions in relation to the
D.B. PAROLE PETITION NO. 10227/2013.
Pukhraj Vs. State of Rajasthan
// 4 //
same prisoner has surfaced essentially because the fact of
filing of another petition or any previous decision as regards
the same prayer was not brought to the notice of the Court.
Thus, before parting, it appears expedient to make a few
comments as regards such nature similar matters and to issue
necessary directions.