Allowed

Bansi Lal v. State of Raj.

Rajasthan HC7 Jul 2014CW/3968/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition seeking the second regular parole of a convict prisoner. It held that bare apprehensions by the Superintendent of Police regarding ill-happenings were insufficient to deny parole and directed the respondents to grant 30 days parole subject to sureties.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to release the petitioner to avail 30 days second regular parole subject to furnishing two sureties of Rs.10,000/each and a personal bond.

Bansi Lal Vs State of Raj. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

D.B. CIVIL WRIT (PAROLE) PETITION NO.3968/2014 BANSHI LAL V/S STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. ***

¶3

DATE OF ORDER

¶4

07.07.2014

¶5

HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR,J HON'BLE MR. ATUL KUMAR JAIN ,J

¶6

By post.

¶7

Mr.Shiv Kumar Vyas, Government Advocate

¶8

A letter addressed to this court by the convict-prisoner Banshi Lal S/o Shri Haja, By caste Meena, Resident of Athamana Kotada Bilakh, presently lodged at Central Jail, Udaipur has been treated as a petition for writ to have a direction for grant 30 days second regular parole as per the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1958').

¶9

The parole has been denied to the convict-prisoner by relying upon the adverse remarks made by the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur. As per the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur , the petitioner is permanent resident of Athamana Kotada Bilakh but his family is residing at Bhudar Falan Gotwada. The Superintendent of Police, Udaipur has apprehended some ill-happening at village Athamana Kotada Bilakh in the event of grant of parole to the convict-prisoner. Besides the adverse remarks made by the Superintendent of Police, nothing adverse for grant of parole is shown to us.

¶10

It is well settled that parole is a provision in consonance with the theory of reformation of a criminal by his rehabilitation in the

¶11

¶12

regular stream of the society. The Rules of 1958 are also framed with the same objects. The District Parole Advisory Committee thus, is required to consider the cases of each and every convict-prisoner for grant of parole by keeping in mind the aim and object of the rules concerned. In the case in hand, a bald apprehension has been shown by the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur about some illhappening in the event of grant of parole. No foundation is there for such an apprehension.

¶13

It shall also be relevant to mention that the petitioner has already availed first regular parole and while availing that no unwarranted incident took place. It is also pertinent to notice that the convict-prisoner is permanent resident of Athamana Kotada Bilakh but his family is now residing at Bhudar Falan Gotwada. Looking to this fact, there are mere feeble chances of visiting the village Athamana Kotada Bilakh by the convict-prisoner.

¶14

In view of it, we are of the view that parole has been erroneously denied to the convict-prisoner. The petition for writ thus is allowed and the respondents are directed to release the convictprisoner to avail 30 days second regular parole in accordance with the Rules of 1958 provided he furnishes two sureties of Rs.10,000/each and a personal bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Udaipur. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Udaipur while releasing the convict-prisoner on parole shall be at liberty to impose other adequate and reasonable

¶15

¶16

conditions upon him to ensure his return to the State custody after availing the parole.

¶17

The Registry of this court is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Udaipur with a specific direction to convey decision of this court to the convictprisoner within a period of three days from the date of receipt of the order.

¶18

[ATUL KUMAR JAIN], J. [GOVIND MATHUR], J.

¶19

Anil Singh

Bansi Lal v. State of Raj.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bansi Lal v. State of Raj.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Kamla Bai Vs Lake Pala Ce Hotels and Motels P. Ltd.,andOR

Mangi Lal and Ors. Vs Dalchand Nagda and Anr.

Kishan Vs State of Raj.

Haima Vs State of Raj.

Leela Devi Vs State of Raj.

Suresh Vs State of Raj.