Allowed

Gyanendra Shukla S/O Kamal Kumar v. Director General of Police (Prisoners)

Rajasthan HC11 Dec 2023CRLW/1537/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition filed by a prisoner whose plea for first parole was rejected under the 2021 Rules, holding he was entitled to parole under the 1958 rules as his conviction predated the new regime, allowing him parole after serving 5 years.

What did the court decide?

The petition was allowed; the impugned order dated 30th May, 2023 was quashed; the petitioner was directed to be released on first parole of 20 days upon furnishing a personal bond.

Gyanendra Shukla S/O Kamal Kumar Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JP:38763-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1537/2023

¶4

Gyanendra Shukla S/o Kamal Kumar, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Mirjapur Alias Todhakpur, Police Station Lalganj, District Raibarely, Uttar Pradesh Presently Tenant House Of Pappu Meena, Opposite 21 Number Bus Stand, Near Vaishali City, Sirsi Road, Meenawala, Police Station Karni Vihar, Jaipur. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. Director General Of Police (Prisoners), Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶8

1. The District Collector And District Magistrate, Jaipur. 3. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.Lalit Gautam with Mr.Ajeet Singh Devanda
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.NS Gurjar, AGA

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶12

Order

¶13

11/12/2023

¶14

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved of rejection of his prayer for grant of first parole of 20 days by the District Magistrate, Jaipur vide its order dated 30^th May, 2023.

¶15

The application has been rejected by observing that as under Rule 16(1) of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021 (‘Rules of 2021’) , the petitioner has not completed half sentence along with remission, thus he is not eligible for first parole.

¶16

[2023:RJ-JP:38763-DB]

¶17

[CRLW-1537/2023]

¶18

(2 of 3)

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that as the petitioner was convicted by judgment dated 24^th June, 2019, his case would be governed by Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (‘Rules of 1958’) , wherein on completion of 1/4th sentence, the prisoner is entitled for seeking parole.

¶20

The reply to the petition has been filed by learned counsel for the respondents with reference to a Circular dated 26^th June, 2019 (Annexure – R/2), interalia, indicating that as in case of life convicts, the period of ¼ cannot be determined, thus they cannot be released on parole.

¶21

Based on it, the petition has been contested, however, it is indicated that the petitioner has already undergone the sentence for 7 years and 17 days as on 20^th September, 2023 including remission.

¶22

We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶23

So far as the applicability of Rules of 2021 or Rules of 1958 is concerned, the issue has been set at rest by Principal Seat at Jodhpur in the case of Laxman Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.180/2022 decided on 27.03.2023, wherein it has been laid down that the relevant date for applicability of Rules will be the date, on which, the conviction took place and as in the present case, the petitioner has been convicted on 24^th June, 2019, his case would be governed by the Rules of 1958, wherein on completion of ¼ sentence, he is eligible for grant of first parole.

¶24

[2023:RJ-JP:38763-DB]

¶25

[CRLW-1537/2023]

¶26

(3 of 3)

¶27

So far as the reliance, placed by learned counsel for the respondents, on the Circular dated 26^th June, 2019 is concerned, it appears that the said Circular has been issued in reference to the rules, wherein Rule 15(d) of the Rules of 1958 clearly provided that for the purpose of the rules, life sentences be reckoned as 20 years and in Rule 17(d) of the Rules of 2021, again it has been indicated that life sentences served for the purpose of rules shall be reckoned as 20 years.

¶28

In that view of the matter, the petitioner, on completion of 5 years’ sentence along with remission, is entitled for grant of first parole.

¶29

Consequently, the rejection of prayer of the petitioner with reference to Rules of 2021 and sought to be supported by Circular dated 26^th June, 2019 (Annexure – R/2) cannot be countenanced. 11. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The minutes dated 30^th May, 2023 (Annexure – 2), qua the petitioner, are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to release the petitioner on first parole of 20 days, upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur on the usual terms and conditions. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur shall be at liberty to impose other adequate and reasonable conditions to ensure return of the convict to the custody after availing the parole. The term of parole shall be computed from the date of his actual release.

¶30

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J

¶31

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶32

Preeti Asopa /14

Gyanendra Shukla S/O Kamal Kumar v. Director General of Police (Prisoners)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gyanendra Shukla S/O Kamal Kumar v. Director General of Police (Prisoners)

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

Ram Singh Meena S/O Sh. Ram Karan Meena Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

M/S Preeti Lce Cream and Foods Vs Commissioner Taxes Officer Andanr

Muskan Khandelwal D/O Dinesh Khandelwal Vs Union of India

Bhagwan Dass Agarwal S/O Late Shri Ram Charan Lal Agarwal Vs State of Rajasthan through Its Principal Law Secretary

Rajender Kumar Maan S/O Roora Ram Maan Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Shanti Devi W/O Shri Goverdhan Lal Kumawat Vs Collector (Stamps)