Allowed

Aandchi W/O Chandgiram B/C Jaat v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC15 Mar 2019CRLW/143/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Jaipur allowed a writ petition challenging the denial of first regular parole. Finding the State's reason unsubstantiated and relying on principles from precedent, the court set aside the impugned order and granted parole for 20 days.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order denying parole is set aside. The petitioner is granted first regular parole for 20 days from the date of release to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Jhunjhunu.

Aandchi W/O Chandgiram B/C Jaat Vs State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Criminal Writ No. 143/2019

¶3

Aandchi W/o Chandgiram B/c Jaat

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

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

¶9

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

¶10

Order

¶11

15/03/2019

¶12

Present petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying that the order dated 31.01.2019 passed by District Parole Advisory Committee, Jhunjhunu whereby first regular parole for a period of twenty days has been denied to the accused petitioner, be set aside.

¶13

Upon notices issued respondents have filed the reply. It may be noticed here that the Social Justice Department, Jhunjhunu had recommended for releasing of the petitioner on parole. Para-7 of the reply reads as under:-

¶14

“That the Social Justice Department Jhunjhunu vide its letter has recommended for parole to petitioner on furnishing the necessary sureties and bond.”

¶15

However, parole has been declined to the petitioner on the ground that if she is released on parole there is apprehension

¶16

[CRLW-143/2019]

¶17

(2 of 4)

¶18

that she may not return to prison. The reason to deny the parole in para-6 of the reply reads as under:-

¶19

“That the District Parole Advisory Committee Jhunjhunu convened its meeting on 21.01.2019 and as per proceedings of minutes the S.P. Jhunjhunu has reported vide its letter No. 5254-55 dated 28.12.2018 that if petitioner is released on parole there is every apprehension of not returning into jail from parole hence he has not recommended from parole to petitioner.”

¶20

Only bare assertion has been made in the reply, without giving any justifiable reasons in support thereof, nothing has been said about the conduct or antecedents of the petitioner in the reply. We cannot accept the reason assigned by the District Parole Advisory Committee, as same has not been substantiated.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

[CRLW-143/2019]

¶24

(3 of 4)

¶25

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 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.

¶26

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.

¶27

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.

¶28

We are unable to accept the reason given by the District Parole Advisory Committee, consequently the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is granted first regular parole

¶29

[CRLW-143/2019]

¶30

(4 of 4)

¶31

for a period of 20 days from the date of release to the satisfaction

¶32

of the District Magistrate, Jhunjhunu.

¶33

(G R MOOLCHANDANI),J

¶34

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J

¶35

TN/12

Aandchi W/O Chandgiram B/C Jaat v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aandchi W/O Chandgiram 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

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