Allowed

Kishan Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC24 May 2023CRLW/526/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petitioner's bail/writ petition for a seven-day parole. Rejecting reliance on newer 2021 Rules for a conviction under old laws, the Court ordered release contingent on a security deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- and personal bond, despite prior absconding.

What did the court decide?

Parole granted for seven days on depositing Rs.2,00,000/- with Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur, and furnishing personal bond with two sureties.

Kishan Choudhary Vs State of Rajasthan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

(1 of 4)

[2023/RJJD/016979]

[CRLW-526/2022]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶5

D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 526/2022

¶6

Kishan Choudhary S/o Late Shri Heera Ram, Aged About 39 Years, At Present Lodged In Central Jail Jodhpur Through His Nephew Shri Jitendra Choudhary S/o Shri Teja Ram Aged About 23 Years R/o Vill. Khari Khurd Ps Karwad Tehsil Bavri Dist. Jodhpur

¶7

----Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through Dept. Of Home Raj. Jaipur 2. The Distt. Collector, Jodhpur 3. The Superintendent, Central Jail Jodhpur

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kalu Ram Bhati. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Joshi, G.A. - cum – AAG with Mr. Rajat Chhaparwal.

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI Order 24/05/2023

¶13

This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking parole of seven days under Rule 18(2) of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (‘the Rules of 1958’).

¶14

Submissions have been made that the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Sections 304B & 498A IPC with life imprisonment on 24.08.2010 and the appeal is pending.

¶15

The petitioner is eligible for seven days’ parole under the Rules of 1958, however, the application made by the petitioner in this regard was earlier rejected on 24.02.2021, which was challenged by the petitioner by filing D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.175/2021, wherein the Division Bench on 12.07.2021, though rejected the petition, granted liberty to the petitioner to reapply for parole after one year.

[2023/RJJD/016979]

[CRLW-526/2022]

(2 of 4)

When the petitioner reapplied for grant of parole for seven days, again by order dated 28.11.2022 (Annex.2), the application has been rejected by the District Magistrate, inter-alia, observing that in view of the provisions of Rule 16(2) of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021 (‘the Rules of 2021’) as the petitioner has not earned remission to the extent of 50% of his sentence, is not entitled to be released on parole and as on the earlier occasion, when the petitioner was released on parole under the Rules of 1958, he remained absconding for over five years and after much efforts, he was again apprehended and based on the said reason, the application has been rejected.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that rejection of the application under the Rules of 2021 is not justified, as the said Rules are not applicable, inasmuch as, as the petitioner has been convicted before the Rules of 2021 come into force, the Rules of 1958 would apply.

¶21

Reliance has been placed on Laxman Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.180/2012, decided on 27.03.2023.

¶22

Further submissions have been made only because on the earlier occasion, the petitioner remained absconding, cannot be a reason to refuse grant of parole, as the conduct of the petitioner after he was apprehended, is satisfactory and a recommendation in this regard has been made by the Prison Welfare Officer of the Social Welfare Department.

¶23

Learned Govt. Advocate vehemently opposed the submissions. It was submitted that though under the Rules of 1958, the petitioner may be entitled for grant of parole, however

[2023/RJJD/016979]

[CRLW-526/2022]

(3 of 4)

looking to his previous conduct, wherein he has remained absconded for over five years and much efforts were required to apprehend him under the supervision of this Court, wherein he was rearrested from Gujarat and in case, he is released again, there is likelihood of his absconding.

¶28

Submissions have also been made that when the petitioner moved 4^th suspension of sentence application in the appeal, for the period the petitioner was absconding, for the efforts made by the police the estimate of expenses was called by the Court, wherein it was indicated that a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was spent by the department in re-apprehending the petitioner and therefore, the petition deserves dismissal.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the petitioner is prepared to deposit a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with the Superintendent of Police, in case, he is granted parole for seven days and on his surrender on 7^th day on completion of period of parole, the amount be refunded back to him. In case of any failure / default, the amount be forfeited.

¶30

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

¶31

In so far as, the rejection by the respondents based on the Rules of 2021 is concerned, in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Laxman Singh (supra), the said rejection is not justified.

¶32

Coming to the previous conduct of the petitioner, admittedly, he has remained absconding for over five years and after much efforts, he has been re-apprehended by the respondents, however,

[2023/RJJD/016979]

[CRLW-526/2022]

(4 of 4)

in view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the willingness of the petitioner in depositing a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on being released on parole, which amount be returned back to him on surrender on completion of period of parole, we deem it appropriate that the petitioner be granted parole for a period of seven days on his depositing a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur.

¶37

Consequently, the petition is allowed. The recommendation drawn by the District Parole Advisory Committee vide its order dated 28.11.2022 (Annex.2) qua the petitioner is quashed, and it is ordered that on depositing a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur, the petitioner shall be released on parole of seven days, it would also be required of him to furnish 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, Jodhpur on the usual terms and conditions. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur 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.

¶38

On the petitioner surrendering on the date to be fixed by the Superintendent, the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- deposited by the petitioner for being released on parole, be refunded back to the petitioner. In case of any failure / default, the amount shall stand forfeited.

¶39

(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J

¶40

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶41

11-Rmathur/-

Kishan Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishan Choudhary 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

Ratan Lal @ Battu Vs State of Rajasthan

Meghna Kanwar Chouhan Vs State of Rajasthan

Chandu Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Sahab Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Jai Dev Vs the State of Rajasthan

Pawan Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan