Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3.11 Mr. Amin has also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Asfaq Vs. State of Rajasthan reported (2017) 15 SCC 55. By inviting attention of this Court to the facts of the case, he has submitted that the petitioner therein was convicted in the serial bomb-blast which took place in the trains at the behest of certain miscreants, on the first anniversary of babri masjid demolition. The petitioner was facing serious allegations with regard to supply of explosive materials. He further submitted that his conviction was upheld and was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Though he was awarded life imprisonment , his conviction and sentence of the said applicant in appeal upto Hon'ble Supreme Court had attained finality. The applicant had applied for parole before the advisory committee which came to be rejected by the committee on the ground that NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/5471/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2023 undefined they had no jurisdiction to entertain parole for TADA prisoners. The aforesaid decision of the advisory committee was challenged by the said applicant in the form of writ petition before the High Court of Rajasthan. The petition was disposed of initially with direction to the advisory committee to examine the same in accordance with law. Ultimately, the matter went up to the Supreme Court. The contention was raised by the said applicant before the Hon'ble Apex Court that merely because the applicant was convicted of an offense which was of serious or heinous in nature, would not be a ground to reject the plea of parole out rightly. The Hon'ble Court having given serious consideration to the submissions made by the Counsel, at one stage held that there cannot be any presumption that a person who is convicted of serious or heinous crime is to be ipso facto treated as a hardened criminal. The Hon'ble Apex Court had taken into consideration the factors which contributed to the criminal behavior and having noticed the reports submitted by the authorities, the Court held that the authorities have not taken into account relevant considerations while rejecting the request of parole. However, the Court upon appreciation of material formed an opinion that this was not an effective case for grant of NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/5471/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2023 undefined parole to the said applicant. The applicant was ultimately permitted to renew his request after some time. By referring to the aforesaid facts Mr. Amin submitted that so far as present case is concerned this is also the case of serial bomb blast which has taken place in different parts of the cities of Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar and Surat in the State of Gujarat. At the end of the trial, the petitioners are found to be guilty of commission of the aforesaid offense and are awarded the death sentence. He has submitted that around 70 persons have lost their lives and more than 250 persons have been injured. He has therefore submitted that looking at seriousness and the gravity of offence in which the petitioner have been convicted, the Court may not exercise its writ powers and the petitioners may be relegated to the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Division Bench who is seized of Criminal Confirmation Case.