Allowed

Sunil Kumar @ Monu S/O Shri Satbir @ Bhola v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC7 Jul 2021CRLW/669/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the refusal of permanent parole on grounds of not availing three regular paroles. The High Court held that technical non-availing is not a valid denial ground without adverse material and allowed the petition. The impugned order was quashed and the petitioner was released on permanent parole subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order refusing permanent parole quashed and set aside; petitioner directed to be released on permanent parole subject to personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 and two sureties of Rs. 50,000 each.

Sunil Kumar @ Monu S/O Shri Satbir @ Bhola… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Writ Petition(Parole) No. 669/2021

¶3

Sunil Kumar @ Monu S/o Shri Satbir @ Bhola, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Bhagwadi Khurd Ps Behror Dist. Alwar Raj. (At Present Serving His Sentence In Central Jail Alwar) Through His Cousin Brother Ajay Kumar S/o Hukam Chand Aged About 34 Years Bawad Sakatpura Dist. Alwar Raj.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Home Secretariat Jaipur

¶7

The Deputy Secretary, Department Of Home (Group-12) Government Of Raj. Govt. Secretariat Jaipur

¶8

The Prisoners Parole Advisory Committee (State Committee), Through Its Chairman Director General Of Prisons Raj.

¶9

Superintendent, Central Jail Alwar

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Vishram Prajapati
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Chandragupt Chopra,PP.

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

¶13

Order

¶14

07/07/2021

¶15

This parole petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer that the order dated 17.03.2021 issued pursuant to the meeting of Permanent Parole Committee dated 15.02.2021 whereby the petitioner has been denied permanent parole on the ground of non availing of three regular paroles, be quashed.

¶16

It has been submitted in the petition that the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Behror Alwar vide its order

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

[CRLW-669/2021]

¶19

dt.3.2.2020 convicted the petitioner for the offence under Sections 498A and 304B of IPC and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. Out of which the accused petitioner has served more than 7 years 2 months on 17.03.2021.

¶20

It has further been submitted that the petitioner had served more than 7 years 2 months of imprisonment out of the total sentence of 10 years till 17.03.2021. The conduct of the petitioner has remained absolutely good and he is continuously getting remission in jail on the basis of his good conduct and behavior. Thus, he is entitled to be released on permanent parole.

¶21

In the reply, it is submitted that the case of the petitioner was placed before State Level Parole Advisory Committee but the same has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not availed three regular paroles, although there is no specific period of sentence for eligibility of permanent parole. It has further been submitted that after availing three regular paroles, his case will be considered for permanent parole.

¶22

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

¶23

Issue raised, in the instant case, is no longer res-integra.

¶24

In the case of Suresh & Others Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2011 (3) WLC 643, Division Bench of this Court had held that on the technical ground that the petitioner has not availed three permanent paroles is not a good ground to deny the parole until some adverse material is brought on record that if the petitioner is released on parole, the same will cause disturbance in the society.

¶25

Having regard to the submissions made by the parties and in view of the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court, cited

¶26

(3 of 3)

¶27

[CRLW-669/2021]

¶28

herein above, I deem it just and proper to allow the present petition for parole and set aside the impugned order dated 17.03.2021 qua petitioner, whereby permanent parole was refused to him.

¶29

Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated 17.03.2021 qua petitioner stands quashed and set aside and the concerned District Authority is directed to release the convict-petitioner on permanent parole, subject to furnishing his personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- before the concerned District Magistrate. The petitioner is also directed to furnish two sureties of Rs. 50,000/-each within two weeks to the satisfaction of the concerned District Magistrate 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 and will abide by any other condition imposed by the authority.

¶30

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶31

Seema/59

Sunil Kumar @ Monu S/O Shri Satbir @ Bhola v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar @ Monu S/O Shri Satbir @ Bhola 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

Prem Singh S/O Birbal Vs State of Rajasthan

Pramod Kumar Sharma S/O Ramesh Chandra Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Nagma W/O Suraj Kumar, Daughter of Shri Subhan Kha Vs State of Rajasthan

Omprakash Soni S/O Shri Mahaveer Soni Vs State of Rajasthan

Amit Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Kishore Sharan Sharma Vs Ajendra Singh Khidiya S/O Omendra Singh Khidiya

Ramdhan Kumawat S/O Shri Soorajmalkaran Vs State of Rajasthan