Allowed

Omparkash S/O Shri Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC21 Feb 2022CRLW/51/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition seeking permanent parole for a life convict who served over 20 years. The Court held that the Superintendent of Police's apprehension regarding danger to the victim's family was baseless, considering the petitioner's satisfactory conduct during previous paroles.

What did the court decide?

Release on permanent parole subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each.

Omparkash S/O Shri Rameshwar Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 51/2022

¶3

Omparkash S/o Shri Rameshwar, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Neem Colony Jatav Basti P.S. Hindaun City Distt. Karauli Raj. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

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

¶7

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

¶8

The Director General Of Prisons Directorate Prisons, Ghatgate Jaipur Raj.

¶9

The Distt. Magistrate, Karauli, Office At Collectorate Karauli Raj.

¶10

The Superintendent Central Jail, Jaipur Raj.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Govind Prasad Rawat Mr. T.C. Swami For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Gurjar, Asst. Govt. Advocate

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶14

Order

¶15

21/02/2022

¶16

This parole petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer that the petitioner be released on permanent parole.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was convicted by the trial Court vide judgment dated 07.12.2007 for the offence under Sections 302/34 IPC and was

¶18

(2 of 3)

¶19

[CRLW-51/2022]

¶20

sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. It is also contended that petitioner has already served sentence of more than 20 years. It is also contended that the petitioner was earlier given benefit of parole five times and he has always surrendered before the authorities on completion of the period. It is further contended that the authorities have rejected the prayer of the petitioner for permanent parole on the ground that he was not present in the roll call on 04.10.2018 and the Superintendent of Police has reported that there is apprehension that release of petitioner on permanent parole may be dangerous to the family of the victim.

¶21

Learned Assistant Government Advocate appearing for the State contends that the petitioner was absent during attendance in Open Air Camp for which an FIR was registered. It is also contended that another FIR for gambling was also registered against him in the year 2018.

¶22

We have considered the contentions. 5. Petitioner has already served sentence of 3 months for remaining absent during roll call in 2018. Petitioner has already remained in custody for a period of more than 20 years and there is no report of any untoward incident while he was on parole, therefore, the apprehension of Superintendent of Police is baseless.

¶23

Considering the period of custody and the purpose of the parole Rules, we deem it proper to allow the writ petition. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition (parole) stands allowed and the recommendation of the Parole Advisory Committee dated 15.04.2021 qua the present 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

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

[CRLW-51/2022]

¶26

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 the permanent parole, the petitioner commits any undesirable activity, he can be called upon to serve his remaining sentence in Sessions Case No. 18/2006 (8/2006) and at the same time, he shall also maintain peace and tranquility during the parole period.

¶27

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶28

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶29

Ritu/100

Omparkash S/O Shri Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Omparkash S/O Shri Rameshwar 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

Union of India Vs Manish Yogi S/O Late Shri Nemichand

Balkishan S/O Kamal Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Jeevanram S/O Nanagram B/C Balai Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S Harvest Gold Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner

Maan Singh S/O Jai Narayan Vs State of Rajasthan

Fateh Singh S/O Shri Jagdish Prasad Vs State of Rajasthan