Allowed

Mukesh @ Sukharam v. State

Rajasthan HC5 Jul 2019CRLW/176/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition was filed by a convict seeking release on first parole. The High Court, after rejecting the parole committee's vague reasons, allowed the petition and directed the release of the petitioner subject to furnishing sureties and a personal bond.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be released on 20 days parole subject to furnishing two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each and a personal bond of Rs. 50,000.

Mukesh @ Sukharam Vs State — Rajasthan HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S. B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 176/2019

¶3

Mukesh @ Sukharam S/o Sh. Dhalaram, B/c Regar, R/o House No. 125, Ram Rahim Colony, Pali, Police Thana Kotwali, Dist. Pali (Raj.)

¶4

(Presently lodged at Central Jail, Jodhpur)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan through Home Secretary, Jaipur.

¶8

Collector, Pali.

¶9

Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner : By Post For Respondents : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, P.P.

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶13

Order

¶14

05/07/2019

¶15

The instant petition has been registered on the letter of convict-petitioner, who is languishing in Central Jail, Jodhpur for release on first parole of 20 days .

¶16

The Parole Committee has rejected the application on the ground of adverse police report.

¶17

The State has submitted its reply. In the reply, it has been stated that the District Parole Committee while considering the matter of the convict-prisoner has rejected his application on the ground that it will not give a correct message in the society if, the convict-petitioner is released on parole and besides that he may also threaten the victim side. There is no foundation for such

¶18

(2 of 2)

¶19

[CRLW-176/2019]

¶20

averments in the order and it is merely on the basis of bald imagination.

¶21

This Court has considered the decision of Parole Committee rejecting the parole claimed. The convict has already undergone the sentence of 02 years 09 months and 19 days as on 03.04.2019. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner does not suffer from any ineligibility for his release on parole as prescribed under Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958.

¶22

It is well settled that parole is a device for reformation of a criminal for his rehabilitation in society. The object of parole cannot be frustrated on the basis of vague and ill-founded reasons.

¶23

Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to release convict-prisoner Mukesh @ Sukharam S/o Dhalaram to avail 20 days first parole as per provisions of the Rules of 1958 provided he furnishes two sureties in a sum of Rs.25,000/- each and a personal-bond of Rs.50,000/- to the satisfaction of Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur. The Superintendent, Central Jail concerned will give a date for surrender of convict and shall also be at liberty to impose other reasonable and adequate conditions to ensure his return to the State custody after availing the parole. A copy of this order may be sent to the convict.

¶24

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶25

20-Inder/-

Mukesh @ Sukharam v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh @ Sukharam v. State

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

Amit Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Kamal Vs State

Laxmi Vs State of Rajasthan

Monu @ Vikas Sirohiya Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhagwati Lal Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Deva Ram Vs State of Rajasthan