Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

It was also noticed that the sentence was silent on his right or entitlement of parole.

The Court considered that as per 'Rajasthan Prisoners' Release on Parole Rules, 1958' a prisoner sentenced to imprisonment for not less than one year was permitted to make an application for release on parole before the Prisoners' Parole Advisory Committee. The procedures to be followed in considering such applications and the time for which parole was to be allowed was specified. But in view of the commutation of death sentence into life imprisonment and specific conditions imposed foregoing commutation or premature release under any statute or rules and considering the apprehension expressed by the complainant it was held that the appellant shall not be entitled for regular parole in terms of Rule 9 of the said Rules. However, in emergent cases involving humanitarian considerations, the authority concerned was free to pass appropriate orders in terms of Rule 10-A(i) of the Rules by imposing stringent conditions.

It was observed :

"15. Though the Rajasthan Prisoners' Release on Parole Rules, 1958 enable the appellant to apply for parole before the Advisory Committee, we are of the view that in view of the commutation of death sentence into life imprisonment and specific conditions imposed foregoing commutation or premature release under any statute or rules and considering the apprehension expressed by the complainant Respondent 2 herein, we hold that henceforth the appellant shall not be

6 of 8 CWP-1989-2019 [7] entitled for regular parole in terms of Rule 9 of the said Rules. However, if any contingency arises, the same may be considered by the Advisory Committee in terms of Rule 10-A(i) of the said Rules which reads as under:

"10-A. (i) Notwithstanding the provisions of Rules 3, 4, 5, 9 and 10 in emergent cases, involving humanitarian consideration viz.: (1) critical condition on account of illness of any close relations i.e. father, mother, wife, husband, children, brother or unmarried sister; (2) death of any such close relation; (3) serious damage to life or property from any natural calamity; and (4) marriage of a prisoner, his/her son or daughter or his/her brothers/sisters in case his/her parents are not alive.

16. In view of the order of this Court dated 29-3-2001 in Subash Chander, we reiterate that the appellant is not entitled to normal parole in terms of Rule 9, however, in emergent cases involving humanitarian considerations, the authority concerned is free to pass appropriate orders in terms of Rule 10-A(i) of the Rules. Even while considering such application, the authority concerned is directed to adhere to the conditions mentioned in the said Rule, impose appropriate stringent condition(s) and see that by the temporary release of the appellant nothing happens to the complainant and his family 7 of 8 CWP-1989-2019 [8] and also pass appropriate orders giving them necessary protection. It is also made clear that if the authority concerned is not satisfied with the reasons for temporary parole, it is free to reject such application."