Allowed

Rampal S/O Sh. Bhagwana Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC8 Nov 2021CRLW/1490/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking permanent parole for a life convict who had served over 18 years and maintained good conduct. The court quashed the order refusing parole and directed the authorities to release the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 22.1.2021 is quashed and set aside; petitioner is directed to be released on permanent parole subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.

Rampal S/O Sh. Bhagwana Ram Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1490/2021

¶3

Rampal S/o Sh. Bhagwana Ram, R/o Village Lami Talai, Tan Banura Police Station Dataramgarh, District Sikar (Raj.) (At Present Confined In Open Air Camp Sikar)

¶4

Through His Cousin Brother-Bhanwar Singh S/o Shri Bhiva Ram, Age About 51 Years, R/o Village Lami Talai, Tan Banura Police Station Dataramgarh, District Sikar (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Inspector General, Prison, Jaipur.

¶8

The Superintendent, Open Air Camp, Sikar

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.R. Choudhary, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Javed Choudhary, PP

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS Order

¶12

08/11/2021

¶13

This parole petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer that the order dated 22.1.2021 issued by State Parole Advisory Committee be quashed and set-aside and the petitioner be released on permanent parole under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958 (for short, 'the Rules of 1958').

¶14

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that vide judgment dated 10.3.2011 passed by the Trial Court, the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Sections 302 and 149 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The petitioner filed a D.B. Cr. Appeal No. 336/2011 against the judgment passed by the trial court, which came to be dismissed.

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

[CRLW-1490/2021]

¶17

It has further been submitted that the petitioner has served more than 18 years of sentence. In this way, he has served a substantive part of his sentence. He was granted three regular paroles of 20, 30 and 40 days. He never misused the liberty of parole and on completion of the parole periods he surrendered before the concerned authority on due date. The jail conduct of the petitioner is satisfactory. Presently, he is in Open Air Camp. Thus, he is entitled to be released on permanent parole. The case of the petitioner for grant of permanent parole has wrongly been rejected only on the ground of registration of 8 other criminal cases against him.

¶18

In the reply, nothing has been mentioned about pendency of 8 other criminal cases against the petitioner.

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record.

¶20

It is not in dispute that the petitioner has already been granted benefit of three regular paroles of 20, 30 and 40 days and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him and his conduct and his jail conduct is satisfactory. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has served about 18 years of sentence and presently he is in Open Air Camp.

¶21

Needless to say that in case the petitioner engages himself in any untoward incident during permanent parole, same can be withdrawn and the petitioner can be called upon to serve his remaining sentence.

¶22

Having regard to the submissions made by the parties and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the

¶23

(3 of 3) [CRLW-1490/2021]

¶24

case more particularly the period of sentence served by the petitioner, his jail conduct, nothing adverse was found against him during the period when he was granted three regular paroles and presently he is serving his sentence in Open Air Camp, we deem it just and proper to allow the present petition for parole and set aside the impugned order dated 22.1.2021 qua petitioner, whereby permanent parole was refused to him.

¶25

Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated 22.1.2021 qua petitioner stands quashed and set aside and the concerned Authority is directed to release the convict-petitioner on permanent parole, subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court, with the stipulation that in case during permanent parole, the petitioner commits any undesirable activity, he can be called upon to serve his remaining sentence and at the same time he shall also maintain peace and tranquility during the parole period.

¶26

(UMA SHANKER VYAS),J

¶27

(PRAKASH GUPTA),J

¶28

DK/24

Rampal S/O Sh. Bhagwana Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rampal S/O Sh. Bhagwana Ram 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Khalik @ Khalik S/O Sattar Vs State of Rajasthan

Rohitash Kumar Agarwal S/O Radheshyam Agarwal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Bablu @ Norat S/O Shri Suganchand Vs State of Rajasthan