Allowed

Bheemsingh v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC10 Feb 2017CW/882/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought regular parole for twenty days. The High Court held that an adverse police report cannot be the sole ground to refuse parole. The court granted parole subject to personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be released on parole for twenty days with personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate.

Bheemsingh Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.882/2017.

¶3

Bheemsingh S/o Shri Deepchand, by Caste Bairwa, Aged About 24 Years, Biwai, Bairwa Mohalla, Tehsil Baswa, Police Station Bandikui, District Dausa (Raj.) (at Present Serving His Sentence in Central Jail, Jaipur) Through His Elder Brother Kailash Chand Bairwa S/o Shri Deepchand, Aged About 30 Years, by Caste Bairwa, R/o Biwai, Bairwa Mohalla, Tehsil Baswa, Police Station Bandikui, District Dausa (Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary Home,, Secretariat, Jaipur

¶7

The District Parole Advisory Committee Through Its Chairman, District Magistrate, Dausa

¶8

Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr. Vishram Prajapati on behalf of Mr. Anshuman Saxena.

¶11

For State : Mr. R. R. Baisla, P.P.

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR AGARWAL

¶13

Order

¶14

10/02/2017

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

By this writ petition, the petitioner, who is undergoing sentence in the Central Jail, Jaipur seeks grant of regular parole for twenty days under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Release of Prisoners on Parole Rules, 1958. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dausa vide judgment and order dated 6.9.2016 in Sessions Case No.119/2014 for offence under Section 3/4 of POCSO Act and

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

[CW-882/2017]

¶19

awarded maximum sentence for simple imprisonment of seven years.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner submitted an application before the District Parole Advisory Committee, which was considered in its meeting dated 29.12.2016 and the same was dismissed on the ground of adverse police report and accordingly order was passed on 4.1.2017. It was further submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since his conviction and he has already completed the prescribed period of custody required for release on first regular parole and his conduct and behaviour in jail has been good and unblemished and therefore, he is entitled for regular first parole as per Rajasthan Release of Prisoners on Parole Rules, 1958 but his prayer for release on parole was denied vide order dated 4.1.2017 merely on the report of the Police, to the effect that if the petitioner is released on parole, it may adversely effect the victim as well as the society and it can endanger the complainant party. It was submitted that no material is placed on record to substantiate the apprehensions expressed by Superintendent of Police.

¶21

Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner is not entitled to grant of parole due to adverse police report.

¶22

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the conduct of the petitioner in jail, the report of the police cannot be considered to be the sole ground to refuse regular parole to the petitioner. Therefore, I deem it proper to grant first parole to the petitioner for 20 days under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958.

¶23

It is, therefore, ordered that the petitioner Shri Bheemsingh S/o Shri Deepchand, presently undergoing sentence

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

[CW-882/2017]

¶26

in the Central Jail, Jaipur shall be released on parole for twenty days provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Dausa to the effect that he will surrender himself before the Superintendent Central Jail, Jaipur on completion of twenty days i.e. the parole period. The parole period shall be counted from the date of his release.

¶27

Consequently, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶28

(PRASHANT KUMAR AGARWAL),J.

¶29

A.Arora/-

Bheemsingh v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bheemsingh v. State of Raj and Ors.

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

Parth Treivedi and Anr. Vs U O I and Ors.

Vikki @ Vikas Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Tasveer Meena and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Sushil Agarwal Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Gopal Saini Vs State Education Departmentanr

C T O Vs M/S Hotel Merwara Estate