Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.20 seconds)Section 109 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 433 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Mishraram vs State Of Raj on 6 October, 2010
Obviously, in terms of law laid
down by this Court in Suraj Giri's case (supra), the case for
release on permanent parole of the prisoner who has not availed
the first, second and third parole, shall be considered on the basis
of his conduct during the stay in jail including likelihood of his
relapsing into crime if released on permanent parole. Suffice it to
say that the petitioner who has not been extended the benefit of
(Downloaded on 14/05/2020 at 08:33:27 PM)
(12 of 12) [CRLW-15/2020]
second and third parole on account of his indulging in commission
of the crime during first parole, cannot be treated at par qua the
person who has not availed the second and third parole after
availing the first parole peacefully and thus, the question of his
entitlement for release on permanent parole in terms of Rule 9 of
the Rules of 1958 does not arise.
Asfaq vs The State Of Rajasthan on 11 September, 2017
8. As indicated in Rule 13 of the Rules of 1958, the grant of
parole is regarded as concession to encourage good conduct and it
cannot be claimed by the prisoner as a matter of right. But the
fact remains that the grant of parole to a prisoner is an endeavour
to reform him as a person so that he may be prevented from
relapsing into crime and while establishing the link with the
society again become a law abiding citizen. The purpose behind
the grant of parole has been discussed by the Supreme Court in
detail in the matter of Asfaq vs. State of Rajasthan: AIR 2017 SC
4986, as under:
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1