Disposed

Madan Lal v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC31 Oct 2017CW/11409/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court of Rajasthan granted directions to the District Parole Committee to reconsider the petitioner's application for regular parole. The Court noted that while initial reports were adverse, the petitioner was granted emergency parole following his brother's death without any untoward incidents, indicating the apprehension was unfounded.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the District Parole Committee to reconsider the petitioner's prayer for regular parole after procuring fresh reports from the Police and Social Welfare Department.

Madan Lal Vs State and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11409 / 2017

Madan Lal

----Petitioner

Versus

State & Ors

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : By post

¶9

For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K.Vyas, G.A.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA Judgment / Order

¶11

31/10/2017

¶12

The instant parole writ petition has been preferred by the convict petitioner Madanlal from jail with a prayer for direction to the respondent jail authorities to enlarge him on first regular parole of 20 days.

¶13

The respondents have filed reply to the writ petition wherein the minutes of the Parole Advisory Committee convened on 6.2.2017 and rejected the petitioner’s parole application have been annexed.

¶14

On going through the minutes it is apparent that the District Supdt. Police, Rajsamand and Social Welfare Department gave adverse reports against the prayer of the petitioner for being enlarged on parole mentioning therein that in case the petitioner is released on first parole, the opposite party would come to know of it and any untoward incident may happen. However, on going through the original record provided by the Government Advocate,

¶15

(2 of 2)

¶16

[CW-11409/2017]

¶17

it is apparent that after rejection of the petitioner’s prayer for regular parole, he moved an application for grant of emergency parole on the ground that his brother had expired. The said emergency parole application submitted by the petitioner was accepted and the petitioner who released on emergent parole for a period of 15 days beginning from 8.8.2017. Evidently thus, the apprehension expressed by the authorities that untoward situation may be created by enlargement of the petitioner convict on regular parole of 20 days appears to be totally unfounded.

¶18

In this view of the matter, it is directed that the District Parole Committee shall reconsider the petitioner’s prayer for grant of parole after procuring fresh reports from the Police and the Social Welfare Department authorities and while keeping in view the fact that the petitioner was released on emergency parole of 15 days and no adversity is reflected against him during the period he remained on emergency parole.

¶19

With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶20

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J.

¶21

/sushil/

Madan Lal v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madan Lal v. State and Ors.

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

Badridas Suthar Vs Babulal Sharma Bank Vale and Anr.

Hira Das Vs State and Anr.

Shiv Lal Vs State

Bhagwati Lal Vs Navratan

Tribhuwan Vs State and Anr.

Himanshu Gadhvi Vs State and Anr.