Dismissed

Prashant @ Lala S/O Shri Krishan Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC7 Nov 2024CRLW/1634/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench dismissed the writ petition for permanent parole. Rejecting reliance on prior precedents due to distinguishing conduct, the Court held that absconding and commission of double murder under Section 302 IPC precluded permanent parole despite nine years of custody.

What the court decided

AI extract

Prashant @ Lala S/O Shri Krishan Kumar Vs State… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:46009-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Criminal Writ Petition (Parole) No. 1634/2024

¶4

Prashant @ Lala S/o Shri Krishan Kumar, R/o Nai Mandi, In Front Of Saligram Temple, Bharatpur, Police Station Kotwali, District Bharatpur (Raj.) (At Present Confined In Central Jail Sewar, Bharatpur) Through His Wife- Seema W/o Shri Prashant @ Lala, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Nai Mandi, In Front Of Saligram Temple, Bharatpur, Police Station Kotwali, District Bhartapur (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

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

¶8

The Director General Of Prisons, Directorate Prison, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶9

The Superintendent, Central Jail Sewar, Bharatpur.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Govind Prasad Rawat For State : Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Asst. GA

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA

¶13

Order

¶14

07/11/2024

¶15

Petitioner has filed this writ petition (parole) seeking permanent parole and quashing of order dated 15.02.2024, whereby the application for permanent parole was rejected by the Authorities.

¶16

It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has remained in custody for a period of about nine years and one month. He has availed various paroles and was in open jail.

¶17

[2024:RJ-JP:46009-DB]

¶18

[CRLW-1634/2024]

¶19

(2 of 3)

¶20

Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Shelu @ Shailender Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Criminal Writ Petition (Parole) No.839/2024 decided by Division Bench of this Court on 31.08.2024 and Vinod Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Criminal Writ Petition (Parole) No. 2258/2023) decided by Division Bench of this Court on 05.12.2023.

¶21

It is contended that Rajasthan High Court in different cases has quashed the order of the authorities and released the accused on permanent parole in spite of there being cases against them and in spite of the fact that they had jumped parole.

¶22

Learned Asst. Govt. Adv. has opposed this writ petition (parole). It is contended that petitioner was in open jail. He remained in absconding from 07.11.2021 to 04.12.2021 and during the period when he remained absconding, he was involved in an offence including double murder and Arms Act.

¶23

It is argued by learned Asst. Govt. Adv. that as per Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958, the minimum requirement for grant of permanent parole is that the person concerned should not commit any offence or abet directly or indirectly the commission of any offence. It is argued that the conduct has to be exceedingly well and there must not be any likelihood of the accused relapsing into crime. It is contended that since petitioner remained absconding from open prison and during that period committed offence under Section 302 IPC, likelihood of relapsing into crime cannot be overruled.

¶24

We have considered the contentions and have perused the judgment referred to by counsel for the petitioner. In judgment referred to by counsel for the petitioner, none is a case where the

¶25

[2024:RJ-JP:46009-DB]

¶26

[CRLW-1634/2024]

¶27

(3 of 3)

¶28

petitioner had remained absconding from open prison and has committed a grave offence under Section 302 of IPC involving double murder.

¶29

We are of the considered view that merely because petitioner has remained in custody for a period of about nine years and one month, that cannot be the sole ground for grant of permanent parole.

¶30

As per Rule 9 of Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958, prisoners whose conduct has been exceedingly well and if there is no likelihood of relapsing into crime then only such person can be recommended for release on permanent parole. Since petitioner has absconded from open jail and is involved in offence involving double murder, he cannot be given benefit of permanent parole.

¶31

The Authorities have rightly considered his application for permanent parole and has not committed any error in rejecting the same.

¶32

Consequently, we do not find any force in the present Criminal Writ Petition (Parole) and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶33

(SHUBHA MEHTA),J

¶34

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶35

MAHIMA/48

Prashant @ Lala S/O Shri Krishan Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Prashant @ Lala S/O Shri Krishan Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramdutt Son of Shri Asharam Vs State of Rajasthan

Puniram Son of Laduram Vs State of Rajasthan

Pintu Mali S/O Pukhraj Vs State of Rajasthan

Digvijay Singh Rajawat S/O Surendra Singh Rajawat Vs the State of Rajasthan

Pintu @ Ajay Singh S/O Shri Ramveer Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Nihal Singh S/O Shri Shibbo Vs State of Rajasthan