Disposed

Mohd Mosin Khan v. State Home Departmentors

Rajasthan HC2 Nov 2011CW/10020/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Advisory Committee to reconsider the parole petition of a criminal convict who was rejected due to an adverse police report, as the committee failed to consider material showing the allegations were against the petitioner's son.

What did the court decide?

The case of the petitioner be placed for reconsideration before the Advisory Committee to be decided on or before 31st December, 2011.

Mohd Mosin Khan Vs State Home Departmentors — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

Parole Petition No.10020/2011

¶3

In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench Jaipur O R D E R

¶4

D.B. Civil Writ Petition [Parole] No.10020 of 2011.

¶5

Mohd. Mosin Khan son of late Shri Putan Khan V E R S U S.

¶6

State of Rajasthan and Others

¶7

Date of Order ::: 02.11.2011.

¶8

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalip Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.S. Kothari

¶9

Mr. Sunil Tyagi, Counsel for Petitioner Mr. Rajendra Yadav, Govt. Counsel for the State

¶10

¶11

Per Court :

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

This parole petition was preferred on behalf of Mohd. Mosin Khan, the convict-petitioner, who is undergoing the sentence pursuant to his conviction by the learned Additional Sessions Judge [Fast Track] No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Sessions Case No.70 of 2001 interalia for the offence under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148 and 323 I.P.C. vide order dated 23.11.2011, for being released on parole in accordance with the Rules of 1958.

¶14

The case of the petitioner was brought up for consideration before the Advisory Committee in its meeting held on 17.05.2011 and the same was rejected by the Advisory Committee on the ground of adverse Police report having been given in the instant case.

¶15

Notices were issued to the respondents, who have submitted their reply.

¶16

¶17

Parole Petition No.10020/2011

¶18

In the reply, it has been submitted interalia that the petitioner had remained in Jaipur in pursuance of the order issued by the High Court for his transfer from the Central Jail, Jodhpur for undergoing dental treatment at Jaipur and during this period, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that there were allegedly the complaints of his being involved in certain cases while remaining in jail.

¶19

Since, the report of the Superintendent of Police, Annexure R/2 also made a mention of his being involved in some incident leading to proceedings under Section 151 Cr.P.C. being initiated against the petitioner for the incident, which is said to have taken place in between 10.04.2010 to 16.04.2010. While remaining in jail the petitioner was allegedly involved in certain gangwars. We directed the learned counsel for the State to submit the specific material before this Court for perusal as nothing specific was mentioned in the order.

¶20

Accordingly, certain documents were produced before us relied upon by the learned counsel for the State in this behalf. It was also pointed out that there was involvement of the petitioner allegedly in a case for the offence under the Arms Act .

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, controverted the above stand of the learned counsel for the State and contended that so far as the case under the Arms Act is concerned, a perusal of the challan papers would go to show that the petitioner has not been made an accused in the aforesaid case

¶22

¶23

Parole Petition No.10020/2011

¶24

and there is no allegation against him in this behalf, as such reliance upon such material by the respondents cannot be made a ground to deny the rights of the petitioner.

¶25

We have considered the rival submissions and we find that whatever material the respondents wish to rely upon was not considered by the Advisory Committee except for the statement, as mentioned in the Police report given by the Superintendent of Police concerned before the Advisory Committee.

¶26

As such we would, therefore, direct that the case of the petitioner be reconsidered by the Advisory Committee, as we find that so far as the reliance placed upon the proceedings under Sections 107 and 151 Cr.P.C. is concerned, the same were initiated against the son of the petitioner and not against the petitioner, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as such the material relied upon by the Advisory Committee against the petitioner has nothing to do with the case of the petitioner.

¶27

We would, therefore, refrain ourselves from going through the material and instead direct that the case of the petitioner be placed for reconsideration before the Advisory Committee to be decided on or before 31^st December, 2011 after due consideration in accordance with law.

¶28

With the aforesaid observations, this writ parole petition stands disposed of.

¶29

(S.S. Kothari ) J. (Dalip Singh) J.

¶30

ashok/

Mohd Mosin Khan v. State Home Departmentors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Mosin Khan v. State Home Departmentors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Vs Vinod @ Lala and Others

Lal Chand Sharma Vs Shri Digamber Jain Mandirji

Kalu Ram Vs State of Rajhome Deptand Ors.

Hemant Sarkar Vs State Home Departmentors

Dharm Chand Vs State Home Departmentors

Mahaveer Vs State Home Department Ors.