Allowed

Smt. Parkash Kanwar @ Pinki W/O Raghuveer Sinigh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC11 Jun 2020CRLW/272/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge held that the State Parole Advisory Committee's rejection of the petitioner's permanent parole application was unjustified based on her good conduct and sentence length. The petition was allowed, impugned order quashed, and the petitioner ordered released on permanent parole subject to reporting and bond conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 30.3.2020 quashed; petitioner to be released on permanent parole subject to quarterly reporting and bond of Rs.50,000 with like surety.

Smt. Parkash Kanwar @ Pinki W/O Raghuveer… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Writ Petition(Parole) No. 272/2020

¶3

Smt. Parkash Kanwar @ Pinki W/o Raghuveer Sinigh, R/o Chandlai, Police Station Shivdaspura Distt. Jaipur Raj. (At Present Confined In Mahila Band Sudhar Grah, Ghatgate, Jaipur Raj. Through Her Husband Raghuveer Singh S/o Shri Chen Singh Aged About 45 Years R/o Chandlai, Police Station Shivdaspura Distt. Jaipur Raj.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Home, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶7

The State Parole Advisory Committee, Through Its Chairman Director General Of Prisons, Directorate Prisons, Ghatgate, Jaipur.

¶8

Superintendent Mahila Bandhi Sudhar Grah, Ghatgate, Jaipur Raj.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Govind Prasad Rawat
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Sher Singh Mehla, PP

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶12

Order

¶13

11/06/2020

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a lady who was arrested and sentenced of 10 years of imprisonment for offence u/s 304-A and has already undergone of 8 years and four months of incarceration in jail.

¶15

Learned counsel submits that the case of the petitioner was recommended for permanent parole but the Committee has rejected his case and therefore, she has preferred this writ petition through her husband for grant of permanent parole.

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

[CRLW-272/2020]

¶18

Learned counsel has taken this court to provision of Rule 9 of the Parole Rules 1958 to submit that if the conduct during incarceration of the prisoner has been good and has already availed of the three paroles and there has been no adverse reported against the prisoner, his case may be sent to the Government for permanent parole.

¶19

Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this court in the case of Babu Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan(S.B.Criminal Writ Petition NO. 97/2020) decided on 21.5.2020 wherein in similar circumstances, the concerned petitioner was released on permanent parole.

¶20

Learned PP has filed reply and submits that the case of the petitioner was recommended but the State Parole Advisory Committee has rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that there is no prescribed period or entitlement of permanent parole and same has been accepted by the State Government.

¶21

I have considered the submissions.

¶22

In the case of Suresh & Others Vs. State of Rajasthan,

¶23

reported in 2011(3)WLC643, the Division Bench of this court had examined the matter with regard to release of prisoner on parole and it was held that merely on account of not availing three paroles cannot be a ground to deny the parole. In Babu Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan(supra) permanent parole was granted to prisoner who had remained in jail for eight years four months with the total sentence of ten years.

¶24

Taking into consideration above precedent and also the provision of Parole Rules 1958, this court finds that that the decision of the State Parole Advisory Committee for rejecting the permanent parole of the petitioner is not justified. Although there

¶25

(3 of 3)

¶26

[CRLW-272/2020]

¶27

may not be prescribed period or entitlement for permanent parole, the case of the applicant for permanent parole must be examined, taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances and mainly conduct of the prisoner while facing incarceration.

¶28

Keeping in view above, I am inclined to allow this petition.

¶29

Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The order dated 30.3.2020 passed by State Level Parole Committee is hereby quash and set aside and and respondents are directed to release the petitioner on permanent parole and petitioner shall report every time in each quarter of the each year to the local SHO Police Station with regard to her whereabouts and her conduct and also submit a personal bond of Rs.50,000 with surety of like amount subject to which the petitioner shall be released on permanent parole. The condition for grant of permanent parole is laid down in Rule 9 be applicable also on her.

¶30

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶31

Anu /397

Smt. Parkash Kanwar @ Pinki W/O Raghuveer Sinigh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Parkash Kanwar @ Pinki W/O Raghuveer Sinigh 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

Bhola Ji and Others Vs Kishan Khthat and Others

Govind Sharan Chhipa S/O Shri Ram Swaroop Chhipa B/C Chhipa Vs State of Rajasthan

Jishan S/O Riyaj Ahamad Khan Muslaman Vs State of Rajasthan

Kishan Meghwal S/O Shri Babu Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Moosa Khan S/O Taj Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohd. Nadim S/O Shri Shafi Ansari Vs State of Rajasthan