Partly allowed

Sunil v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC29 May 2023CRLW/785/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the rejection of the petitioner's second parole application. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Bench held that the 2021 Parole Rules cannot apply retroactively to the petitioner's conviction. The order set aside the rejection and remanded the matter to the District Parole Committee for fresh consideration under the 1958 Rules and

What did the court decide?

The order dated 02.11.2021 passed by the District Parole Committee is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Committee to reconsider the case within four weeks under the Parole Rules of 1958 and

Sunil Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJD/017847]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 785/2023

¶4

Sunil S/o Shri Mangi Lal Ji, Aged About 33 Years, B/c Bishnoi, R/o Dantiwas, P.s. Dangiyawas, Dist. Jodhpur. (At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Jodhpur Metropolitan) Through His Wife Smt. Maina W/o Shri Sunil, Aged About 30 Years, R/o 265, Vishnoin Ki Dhani, Dantiwara, P.s. Dangiyawas, Distt. Jodhpur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Home Department - 12, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶8

The District Collector, Cum Magistrate, Jodhpur. 3. The Superintendent Central Jail, Jodhpur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Ms. Laxmi Devi
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Anil Joshi, GA-cum-AAG assisted
	byMr. Pallav Sharma

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI

¶12

Order

¶13

29/05/2023

¶14

This petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the non-consideration of his case for being released on second parole of thirty days.

¶15

The petitioner has been convicted and sentenced for offence under Sections 498, 302 IPC, which is restricted as per Rule 16 (1) (b) of the Parole Rules, 2021, he is not entitled for grant of parole.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to judgment in Laxman Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : D.B.

(2 of 4)

[2023/RJJD/017847]

[CRLW-785/2023]

Criminal Writ Petition No.180/2022 decided on 27.03.2023 made submissions that the case of the petitioner is required to be considered under the Rules of 1958 and rejection of his application under the Rules of 2021 is not justified, as the conviction of the petitioner took place prior to coming into force of the Rules of 2021.

¶21

In the case of Laxman Singh ( supra ), this Court came to the following conclusion:

¶22

“The present application has been rejected by the District Parole Committee only on account of provisions of Rule 16 (2) (b) of the Rules 2021, wherein, it is inter-alia provided that the prisoners convicted under Section 364 IPC shall not be eligible for release on parole.

¶23

The plea raised is that the Rules 2021, in view of the fact that petitioner was convicted on 17.07.2011 and the Rules came into force on 30.06.2021, would have no application.

¶24

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh (supra) inter-alia observed as under:-

¶25

“4 Following the law laid down by this Court, in determining the entitlement of a convict for premature release, the policy of the State Government on the date of the conviction would have to be the determinative factor. However, if the policy which was prevalent on the date of the conviction is subsequently liberalised to provide more beneficial terms, those should also be borne in mind.”

¶26

(emphasis supplied)

¶27

After making the above observations, the Court interalia came to the following conclusion:-

¶28

“15 Be that as it may, we are of the considered view that the circumstances which have been set out in the earlier part of this order order should merit fresh consideration by the State Government. Since the grant of premature release is essentially an executive function relatable to Article 161 of the Constitution, we are of the view that it would be appropriate to direct that the matter should be reevaluated bearing in mind all the relevant circumstances some of which have been noted above. There is merit in the submission which has

(3 of 4)

[2023/RJJD/017847]

[CRLW-785/2023]

been urged on behalf of the petitioner that if the fact that the petitioner was involved in a murder, following a money dispute, is held to be a ground for rejection of his 5 application for premature release, he would be effectively debarred from seeking premature release at any point of time in the future though the coaccused involved in the same crime have since been released. It merits emphasis that this is not a ground for rejection in the policy of 9 July 1992.

¶33

16 In the circumstances, we direct the competent authority of the State Government to reconsider the application of the petitioner for the grant of premature release after duly applying its mind to the relevant facts and circumstances, including those which have been noted above. The application shall be considered in accordance with the policy document dated 9 July 1992 which held the field on the date of the conviction. This exercise shall be completed within a period of two months.”

¶34

(emphasis supplied)

¶35

It can be seen that the Hon’ble Supreme Court came to the conclusion that policy of the State on the date of conviction would be the determinative factor and in case the policy is subsequently liberalized, the same would be taken into consideration while dealing with the application of premature release by the Authorities.

¶36

A Division Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in the case of Anil Kumar (supra) following the judgment in the case of Hitesh (supra) inter-alia came to the following conclusion:-

¶37

“10. In view of judgment of Hitesh @ Bavko Shivshankar Dave vs State of Gujarat(supra) and as per the Rules prevalent at the time of his conviction, petitioner is entitled to be released on permanent parole. Also, taking note of the fact that co-accused have been given benefit of permanent parole, the writ petition(parole) deserves to be allowed.”

¶38

In view of the above, the rejection of petitioner’s application by the District Parole Committee relying on the provisions of Rules 2021 cannot be sustained.

¶39

Insofar as, the Rules 1958 are concerned, the right to get parole under Provisions of Rule 14 of the said Rule 1958, in case, where a person has been convicted for the offence inter-alia under Section 364 IPC is not absolute.

¶40

In view of the above, the petition filed by the petitioner is partly allowed. The order dated 02.11.2021 (Annex.1) passed by the District Parole Committee qua the petitioner is set aside.

(4 of 4)

[2023/RJJD/017847]

[CRLW-785/2023]

The matter is remanded back to the Committee to consider the case of the petitioner keeping in view the provisions of Rules 1958 and the fact that petitioner was accorded parole on several occasions earlier.

¶45

Needful may be done by the Committee within a period of three weeks from the date of this order.”

¶46

In view of what has been laid down in the case of Laxman Singh ( supra ), the rejection of petitioner’s application by the respondents, based on Rules of 2021, cannot be countenanced.

¶47

Consequently, the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in part. The respondents are directed to forward the case of the petitioner to the District Parole Committee to consider the case of the petitioner keeping in view the provisions of Rules of 1958 and the fact that the petitioner was accorded parole on earlier occasion. Needful be done by the Committee within a period of four weeks from the date of this order.

¶48

(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J

¶49

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶50

28-Payal/-

Sunil v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil 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

Sohan Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Rahul Vs State of Rajasthan

Tejinder Pal Singh Vs the Union of India

Prem Singh @ Pappu Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhawani Shankar Vs the State of Rajasthan

Arjun Singh Vs State of Rajasthan