Allowed

Smt Manisha Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC7 Jan 2019CRLW/468/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order granted first parole to a convict-petitioner in an IPC case. The High Court quashed the Parole Committee's rejection based on an adverse police report, noting it as an ineligible ground under applicable rules. The Court directed release with bonds and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Release of the convict-petitioner to avail 20 days first parole upon furnishing two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each and a personal bond of Rs. 50,000.

Smt Manisha Choudhary Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Writs No. 468/2018

¶3

Smt Manisha Choudhary

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. KR Bhati For Respondent(s) : Mr. VS Rajpurohit, PP

¶9

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶10

Order

¶11

07/01/2019

¶12

The convict-petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offences under Section 304 part 1/34 of IPC with 5 years rigorous imprisonment in case No.74/1987 vide judgment dated 30.06.1989 passed by District Judge, Merta. The convict-petitioner has already undergone a sentence of 1 years 8 months and 11 days.

¶13

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

¶14

The Jail Department has submitted its reply.

¶15

After careful perusal of the reply as well as the report from the office of District Collector Nagaur dated 29.11.2018 it reflects that there is no sufficient reason to not to grant first parole to the convict-petitioner.

¶16

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the right of first parole is being hampered due to the Assembly Election of 2018 whereas such Assembly Election have already culminated into the results being announced and

¶17

[CRLW-468/2018]

¶18

(2 of 2)

¶19

Government being formed. The reasons of the convict-petitioner coming out and the same shall have an impact on the law and order, is not convincing without any details.

¶20

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. More so, Ipsi dixit reason of adverse police report cannot be a ground for refusing parole. It is well settled that parole is a device for reformation of a criminal for his rehabilitation in society. The object of parole can’t be frustrated on the basis of vague and illfounded reasons.

¶21

Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to release convict-petitioner Mishrilal @ Misharam S/o Sukhdev to avail 20 days first parole as per provisions of the Rules of 1958 provided he furnish 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, Ajmer. 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.

¶22

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

¶23

6-Sudheer/-

Smt Manisha Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Manisha Choudhary 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Kumar Modi Vs State of Rajasthan

Raj Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Ruksar Vs State of Rajasthan

Safi Mohd. Vs State of Rajasthan

Kishna Ram Vs State

Rajpal Vs State