Allowed

Dipu @ Deepak v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC23 May 2024CRLW/178/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a criminal writ petition seeking release on first parole. It found the parole rejection mechanical and based on vague, extraneous grounds lacking justifiable reasons. The petitioner was ordered released on a twenty-day parole.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on first parole of twenty days upon furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each and undertaking usual terms.

Dipu @ Deepak Vs State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:23765]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 178/2024

¶4

Dipu @ Deepak S/o Shri Prem Chand Muniya, Aged About 23 Years, B/c Meena R/o Village Barsala P.s Patan Distt Banswara (At Prsent Lodged In Central Jail Udaipur ) Through His Father Prem Chand Muniya S/o Shri Jokhla Muniya B/c Meena Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Barsala P.s Patan Distt Banswara

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

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

¶8

The District Collector, Cum Magistrate, Udaipur

¶9

The Superintendent Central Jail, Udaipur

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Laxmi	Ramawat
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Pallav	Sharma, associate to Mr.
	Anil	Joshi,	AAG

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶13

Order

¶14

23/05/2024

¶15

The instant criminal writ petition has been preferred by the convict-petitioner Dipu @ Deepak S/o Shri Prem Chand Muniya seeking his release on first parole of twenty days.

¶16

The District Parole Advisory Committee, Udaipur rejected the parole application of the convict-petitioner vide the impugned recommendations dated 06.09.2023 based on adverse opinion received from the Superintendent of Police, Banswara.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parole application of the petitioner has been rejected on mechanical grounds and he deserves to be released on parole being eligible as per rules.

[2024:RJ-JD:23765]

[CRLW-178/2024]

(2 of 3)

Learned counsel for the State has filed reply and submits that the recommendations of the District Parole Advisory Committee are based on sound reasoning and do not call for any interference.

¶22

Heard. Perused the material available on the record.

¶23

It is reflecting from the minutes of the meeting of the Parole Advisory Committee that the Superintendent, Central Jail, Udaipur as well as the Probation - cum - Prison Welfare Officer, Banswara has made recommendations in favour of the release of the petitioner on parole. The application of the petitioner for release on parole has been rejected on the basis of the adverse recommendation given by the Superintendent of Police, Banswara. I have perused the opinion of the Superintendent of Police, Banswara sent to the Parole Advisory Committee vide letter dated 02.08.2023 and surprised to note that all the averments made therein are in favour of the release of the petitioner, but in the end, it is opined that the petitioner should not be released on parole. In the entire letter not a single reason has been assigned for giving the adverse recommendation for parole. It is stated in the letter that the neither any threat is posed to the accused at the hands of the villagers nor there is any threat perception to any villager from the convict. The victim is not residing in the village of the convict. The neighbours and family members have shown no objection, rather shown their inclination in favour of the release of the petitioner on parole. It is also stated in the letter that the petitioner is not a habitual offender. I have also perused the reply

[2024:RJ-JD:23765]

[CRLW-178/2024]

(3 of 3)

filed on behalf of the State. No justifiable reasons have been mentioned therein to deny parole to the petitioner.

¶28

Having heard and considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material placed on record including the reply filed on behalf of the State, this court is of the considered opinion that the reasons assigned in the order impugned for denying parole to the petitioner are absolutely mechanical, vague and extraneous and are not based on justifiable grounds so as to deny parole to him. Parole is an imported facility provided to convicts to help them to come back into the mainstream of life. It is nothing but an instrument of social rehabilitation of the prisoner and the same should not be ordinarily denied based on flimsy grounds.

¶29

In this background, this court is inclined to accept the instant parole writ petition, which is hereby allowed. It is ordered that the convict-petitioner shall be released on first parole of twenty days upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of Superintendent Central, Jail, Udaipur on the usual terms and conditions. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Udaipur 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.

¶30

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶31

586-Pramod/-

Dipu @ Deepak v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dipu @ Deepak 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mithu Lal and Anr. Vs State

Ravindra Vs State of Rajasthan

Racharam @ Ramchandra Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S Esskay Fincorp Limited Vs State of Rajasthan

Shoaib Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Izrat @ Azra Bano Vs State of Rajasthan