Allowed

Pushpa v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Rajasthan HC19 Feb 2018CRLW/175/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition and granted first regular parole to a life convict serving in an Open Air Camp. It quashed an adverse order by the District Magistrate citing satisfactory jail conduct and lack of tangible material for the adverse report. Directions were issued for release with specific bond and reporting conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted first regular parole for 20 days on personal bond and one surety of Rs.25,000/-. Former order of District Magistrate quashed.

Pushpa Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors. — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Criminal Writ Petition(Parole) No. 175 / 2018

¶3

Pushpa W/o Omprakash B/c Raigar, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Deep Darshan Colony Salempur Road Ajmer At Present Address Plot No. 680, Shri Ramteela, Vijay Nagar Kacchi Basti, Police Station Shastri Nagar Jaipur Presently Serving Her Sentence in Open Air Camp Sanganer Jaipur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan Through Director Inspector General (prison) Jaipur

¶7

The District Parole Advisory Committee Through the District Magistrate Jaipur

¶8

The Superintendent Central Jail Jaipur

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lakhan Singh Tomar For Respondent(s) : Mr. B. N. Sandu, GA/AAG

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYAS

¶13

Order

¶14

19/02/2018

¶15

The convict-petitioner Pushpa , has preferred instant petition for grant of first regular parole for twenty days.

¶16

The petitioner on being convicted by the learned Trial Court is serving life sentence in Open Air Camp, Sanganer, Jaipur.

¶17

Counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner being eligible for seeking first regular parole of 20 days submitted application u/R.9 of the Rules, 1958 and as regards, jail conduct of the petitioner is concerned, the same has been

¶18

(2 of 3)

¶19

[CRLW-175/2018]

¶20

found to be satisfactory however, the District Parole Advisory Committee has given adverse report without any tangible material.

¶21

After considering the submissions made by counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the period undergone and the fact that conduct of convict-petitioner in jail is satisfactory which is one of the pre-condition contemplated u/R.9 of the Rules, 1958 and in the facts & circumstances, we consider it appropriate to grant the convict-petitioner the benefit of first regular parole to which she is entitled for under the Scheme of Rules, 1958.

¶22

Consequently, the instant writ petition stands allowed and order dated 10.07.2017 (meeting of which was held on 30.06.2017) passed by District Collector & District Magistrate, Jaipur, qua the petitioner stands quashed. The jail authorities are directed to release the petitioner ( Pushpa ) on first regular parole, if not availed of, for 20 days from the date of her release including days of journey to home & back on furnishing her personal bond besides one surety of Rs.25,000/- to the satisfaction of concerned District Magistrate with the stipulation that she shall surrender herself and return back to the jail authority on expiry of 20 days (supra) to be notified by jail authority and shall maintain peace & tranquility during parole period and in addition to it she shall further report during parole on each Sunday at

¶23

(3 of 3)

¶24

[CRLW-175/2018]

¶25

11:00 AM at the concerned Police Station and that report be furnished to the jail authority. In case of failure to surrender by petitioner on stipulated date, the jail authority shall proceed in accordance with law.

¶26

A copy of this order be sent to the petitioner through jail authority for compliance. No costs.

¶27

(VIJAY KUMAR VYAS)J.

¶28

(K.S. JHAVERI)J.

¶29

B.M.G/Gourav/25

Pushpa v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpa v. State of Rajasthan 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