Allowed

Krishan @ Bablu v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC2 Nov 2023CRLW/1637/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a criminal writ petition challenging the rejection of a seven-day parole application. The committee had refused parole due to the petitioner's past absconding. The Court set aside this decision, noting satisfactory conduct and current open-air camp conditions, and directed release subject to a bond.

What did the court decide?

The decision of the Committee dated 25.8.2023 is set aside; the petitioner is directed to be released on seven days' parole subject to posting a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.5

Krishan @ Bablu Vs State of Rajasthan — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:37325-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1637/2023

¶4

Krishan @ Bablu S/o Shri Karni Ram, Aged About 47 Years, At Present Lodged In Open Air Camp, Bhichwal Bikaner, Through His Wife Smt. Anita Devi W/o Shri Krishan @ Bablu, Age About 46 Years, R/o Ward No. 02, Sardar Sahar, District Churu.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Dept. Of Home, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶8

The District Collector, Bikaner.

¶9

The Superintendent, Central Jail, Bikaner.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K.R. Bhati For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Joshi, GA-cum-AAG with Mr. Rajat Chhaparwal

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

¶13

Judgment / Order

¶14

02/11/2023

¶15

This criminal writ petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the decision of the Distt. Parole Committee, Bikaner (for short ‘the Committee’) dated 25.8.2023, whereby his application for releasing him on seven days’ parole has been rejected.

¶16

The reason given by the Committee for rejecting petitioner’s application for releasing him on seven days’ parole is that he remained absconded and did not surrender himself before the concerned jail authorities on expiry of 30 days’ second parole in the year 2015.

¶17

[2023:RJ-JD:37325-DB]

¶18

[CRLW-1637/2023]

¶19

(2 of 3)

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though, the petitioner has remained absconded from 2015 to 2018, but after 2018, he was lodged in Central Jail, Bikaner and later on shifted to the Open Air Camp, Bichhwal and at present, he is residing there with his family. Learned counsel has further submitted that the earlier writ petition being DB Criminal Writ Petition No.496/2020 filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 9.2.2021 while granting him liberty to renew the prayer for parole after a lapse of two years. It is submitted that the aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 9.2.2021 and now after a lapse of two years, the petitioner has filed application for releasing him on seven days’ parole under Rule 18 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958, however, the same has been rejected mechanically by the respondents without taking into consideration the fact that the conduct of the petitioner in jail is satisfactory.

¶21

Learned AAG, while opposing this criminal writ petition, has argued that on the basis of the reports of the Superintendent, Central Jail as well as the Social Welfare Department concerned, the benefit of seven days’ parole has been denied to the petitioner and the same is not liable to be interfered with.

¶22

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that though the Superintendent, Central Jail has not recommended for releasing the petitioner on seven days’ parole, but in the report, he has specifically stated that the conduct of the petitioner in the jail is satisfactory and also considering the fact that the petitioner is at present lodged in the Open Air Camp, Bichhwal along with his family and his conduct is

¶23

[2023:RJ-JD:37325-DB]

¶24

[CRLW-1637/2023]

¶25

(3 of 3)

¶26

good, we are of the opinion that the Committee has illegally rejected the application of the petitioner for releasing him on seven days’ parole.

¶27

In view of the above, this criminal writ petition is allowed; the decision of the Committee dated 25.8.2023 qua the petitioner is set aside and the respondents are directed to release the petitioner on seven days’ parole subject to the condition that he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- along with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each on usual conditions.

¶28

The petitioner shall surrender himself before the jail authorities concerned on expiry of the parole period.

¶29

(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J

¶30

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

¶31

23-msrathore/-

Krishan @ Bablu v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishan @ Bablu 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

Heeralal Vs State of Rajasthan

Lakhmaram @ Laxman Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Baljindra Kaur Vs State of Rajasthan

Vijay Kumar @ Khushu Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Devaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Arfi Khan @ Kau Vs State of Rajasthan