Allowed

Vinod Kumar Meena S/O Shri Bharat Lal Meena v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC12 Dec 2023CRLW/2355/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the rejection of the petitioner's parole application, and directed his release on parole for 40 days, relying on previous satisfactory conduct and judicial interpretation of the parole rules.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned order and directed respondents to release the petitioner on 3rd parole of 40 days upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- and two sureties.

Vinod Kumar Meena S/O Shri Bharat Lal Meena Vs the State… — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 2355/2023

¶3

Vinod Kumar Meena S/o Shri Bharat Lal Meena, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Meena Ki Dhani Mangrol, Police Station Sapotara, District Karauli (Raj.) Presently Residing At Plot No. 20, Magazine Vasundhara Colony Karauli, Police Station Karauli, (At Present In Central Jail, Bharatpur) Through His Younger Brother Gaurav Meena S/o Shri Bharat Lal Meena, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Plot No. 20, Magazine Vasundhara Colony Karauli, Police Station Karauli, District Karauli (Raj.) 322218

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

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

¶7

The District Parole Advisory Committee, Through Its Chairman, District Magistrate, Karauli.

¶8

Superintendent Central Jail, Bharatpur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.Vishram Prajapati
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.NA Naqvi, Sr.Adv. (AAG) with
	Mr.Syed Adeel Naqvi
	Mr.NS Gurjar, AGA

¶11

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

¶12

Order

¶13

12/12/2023

¶14

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 09^th October, 2023 (Annexure -1) passed by the District Parole Advisory Committee, Karauli, whereby the application of the petitioner for being released on 3^rd parole of 40 days has been rejected.

¶15

[CRLW-2355/2023]

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the application has been rejected in reference to the provision of Rule 14(d) of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (‘Rules of 1958’) , which is not justified.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was released on parole on two earlier occasions when his conduct has been satisfactory and he has reported back on completion of period of parole.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that reports, sent by the Jail Superintendent and Social Justice Department, pertaining to conduct of the petitioner, are satisfactory and on that count also, the petitioner is eligible for being released on 3^rd parole of 40 days.

¶20

Learned counsel for the respondents made submissions that as the petitioner has, inter-alia, been convicted for the offence under Section 394 IPC, in view of the provisions of Rule 14(d) of the Rules of 1958, the petitioner is not eligible for being released on parole.

¶21

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

¶22

The perusal of Rule 14 of the Rules of 1958 provides that the prisoners, who have been convicted, inter-alia, for the offence under Section 394 IPC, ordinarily will not be eligible for release on parole. The word ‘ordinarily’ has been interpreted by this Court in the case of Raju Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (DB Criminal Writ Petition No.2237/2023) decided on 07^th December, 2023, wherein it has been observed that the word ‘ordinarily’ does not put

¶23

[CRLW-2355/2023]

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

complete ban on the prisoners for being released on parole having been convicted under the provisions indicated in Rule 14(d) of the Rules of 1958. The order passed by the District Parole Advisory Committee, Karauli is mechanical in nature where only with reference to the provisions of Rule 14(d) of the Rules of 1958, the application has been dismissed. 8. Consequently, in view of the reports of Jail Superintendent and Social Justice Department as well as the fact that the petitioner was earlier released on parole twice, the petition is allowed. The minutes dated 26^th September, 2023, qua the petitioner, are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to release the petitioner on 03^rd parole of 40 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, Bharatpur on the usual terms and conditions. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Bharatpur 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.

¶26

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J

¶27

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶28

Preeti Asopa/24

Vinod Kumar Meena S/O Shri Bharat Lal Meena v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar Meena S/O Shri Bharat Lal Meena v. the 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

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

Smt Shikha Sharma D/O Late Sh. Jagdish Prasad Sharma Vs Bhagwati Devi Sharma W/O Late Shri Jagdish Prasad Sharma

State of Rajasthan Vs Sonu Sharma D/O Manohar Lal Sharma

Naveen Panwar S/O Shri Mahesh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Irfan Khan S/O Israel Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Deepak Sharma @ Patel S/O Late Shri Om Prakash Vs State of Rajasthan