Allowed

Narendra Kumar Jaat S/O Ramavtaar Jaat B/C Jaat v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC15 Mar 2019CRLW/141/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bench allowed a petition for first regular parole for 20 days. Rejecting the State's refusal based on vague allegations of public peace disturbance, the court held that substantial material is required to justify denial under the Haryana Act. Specifically, the false anticipatory bail claim was struck. Petitioner sent to jail. Heavy sureties required from Tehsildar. Ordered by DM Bikaner withou

What did the court decide?

First regular parole for a period of 20 days from the date of release, with heavy sureties verified by a Tehsildar, granted and the impugned order set aside.

Narendra Kumar Jaat S/O Ramavtaar… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Criminal Writ Petition(Parole)No. 141/2019

¶3

Narendra Kumar Jaat S/o Ramavtaar Jaat B/c Jaat, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Village Kadma, Police Station Badla, Distt. Biwani Haryana (Presently Confined In Central Jail Bikaner) Through His Elder Brother Manjeet Kumar S/o Ramavtaar Jaat, B/c Jaat Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Kadma, Police Station Badla, Distt. Biwani (Haryana)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Department Of Home, Government Of Raj. Jaipur.

¶7

Distt. Magistrate, Bikaner, Raj.

¶8

Superintendent Central Jail Bikaner., Raj.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Dheeraj Singhal : Mr. N.S. Gurjar, Assistant Govt. Advocate

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G R MOOLCHANDANI

¶12

Order

¶13

15/03/2019

¶14

Present petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying that the petitioner be released on first regular parole for a period of 20 days.

¶15

In the present petition notice was issued and reply thereto was also filed. In Para 4 of the reply, it has been stated as under:-

¶16

“That the District Magistrate Bikaner vide letter No.885 dated 7-2-2019 has stated that the S.P. Charkhi Dadri(Haryana) has reported that if petitioner is released on parole he may jump from parole and may engage into

¶17

(2 of 4)

¶18

[CRLW-141/2019]

¶19

crime as he is a criminal and bad element hence he has not recommended for parole.”

¶20

A perusal of the reply filed reveals that primarily parole has been declined on the ground that if petitioner is released on parole, because of his antecedents he may disturb the public peace.

¶21

The antecedents of the petitioner have not been stated in the reply. Therefore, we may assume that same have not been gathered by the respondents.

¶22

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted at bar that the appeal filed by the petitioner is pending before the Jaipur Bench.

¶23

The Single Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court, in Inderjit Singh vs. State of Haryana [1996 Vol.3 RCR (Cr.) 845] , while interpreting the right of convict to parole under Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968, had observed as under:-

¶24

Under Section 6 of the Act, parole can be declined on the ground if the release of the petitioner is likely to endanger the security of the State or maintenance of public order. These two grounds are not attracted in the present case is as much as security of State cannot be jeopardised by any stretch of imagination. Security of State refers to crimes intended to overthrow the Government, waging of war or internal or external aggression against the Government and such like acts. Similarly maintenance of public order refers to affray, disturbance of peace and the like. It is not made clear in the report of the Government that how his release is likely to attract the above two grounds referred in Section 6 of the Act. The State is not a weak organ that it cannot conduct the maintenance of the public order and is not in a position to keep a watch on the activities of the petitioner for the purposes of public order. The petitioner is not so strong so as to create a situation where the public order is in danger. It seems the grounds have been taken simply to deny the petitioner his right to come out of the jail under the provisions

¶25

(3 of 4)

¶26

[CRLW-141/2019]

¶27

of the Act. However, if the petitioner in any way violates the conditions of release on parole, enough safeguards are provided under Section 8 of the Act and Section 9 of the Act.

¶28

It cannot be disputed that the purpose of release on parole is very useful to change the outlook of a criminal so as to make him a useful member of the society. If he is not allowed to be released on parole, to repair the house, it can have a very bad effect on his attitude towards the society. The stress these days is to hate the crime and not the criminal, rather to give him all the possible avenues to bring him on the path which may lead to bring peace in the society and to get rid of a criminal tendency in a criminal, and one of the ways to do it is to allow him to come out of the cold walls of the jail and to associate with the members of his family so as to carry out the obligations of a social human being so as to bring tranquillity, happiness and prosperity in the society. Many of time, crime is the result of socio-economic milieu and it is the duty of the agencies maintaining the public order and running criminal justice system, to see that the crimes are minimized and there is peace and tranquillity in the society and one of the ways to achieve this object is to give effect to social legislation and salutary provisions of the Act so that the institution of prison which is now being run as not concentration camps with all its brutalities and devoid of human spirit and touch but as reformatory so as to churn out good citizens from bad ones.

¶29

Parole is granted to the convict so that he is able to meet his family members and carry his obligations towards family. Release of convict on parole promotes tranquility, peace, prosperity, happiness and the good will in the society.

¶30

The mere assertion of the police that the public peace will be disturbed without placing on record any material for the perusal of the court is not sufficient. It is a mere excuse and cannot be raised in every case by using words that ' public peace will be disturbed ' until the State justify and place on record any substantial material that if petitioner is released on parole, the same will cause disturbance in the society.

¶31

(4 of 4)

¶32

[CRLW-141/2019]

¶33

We may also notice that in the reply no reasons have been stated as to how and in which manner public peace will be disturbed.

¶34

Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is granted first regular parole for a period of 20 days from the date of release to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate Bikaner.

¶35

Considering that the petitioner is a resident of Haryana, we direct District Magistrate Bikaner, to insist for heavy sureties and sureties to be furnished by the petitioner shall be registered sureties and they shall be verified by a Revenue Officer not below the rank of Tehsildar.

¶36

(G R MOOLCHANDANI),J

¶37

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J

¶38

Heena/TN/11

Narendra Kumar Jaat S/O Ramavtaar Jaat B/C Jaat v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendra Kumar Jaat S/O Ramavtaar Jaat B/C Jaat v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Global Alliance for Human Rights Vs Union of India and Ors.

State Vs Ranjeeta

State Vs Ramji Lal and Others

State of Rajasthan Vs Lalchand S/O Kaluram Mehra B/C Mehra

Lalchand S/O Shri Kaluram Mehra B/C Mehra Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Pappu S/O Shri Devi Lal B/C Meena Vs State of Rajasthan