Allowed

Subhash S/O Shri Lalaram v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC2 Dec 2024CRLW/194/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A convict's parole application was rejected based only on an adverse police report citing apprehension of influence over the victim. The Court held parole cannot be declined on mere apprehension absent concrete evidence, quashed the adverse recommendation, and directed release on regular parole with bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Release on regular parole per Rule 9 on personal bond Rs.1,00,000/- plus two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each, with liberty to impose further conditions.

Subhash S/O Shri Lalaram Vs the State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Writ Petition (Parole) No. 194/2024

¶3

Subhash S/o Shri Lalaram, aged about 24 Years, R/o Lalwai TanChatarpura, Tehsil Bansur, Police Station Bansur, District Kotputli-Behror (Raj.) (at Present Serving his sentence on Central Jail, Jaipur) through his Brother Jaswant Singh S/o Shri Lalaram, aged about 26 Years R/o Lalwai Tan- Chatarpura, Tehsil Bansur, Police Station Bansur, District Kotputli-Behror (Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Rajasthan, through The Secretary Home, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶7

The District Magistrate, Kotputli-Behror (Raj.)

¶8

Superintendent Central Jail, Jaipur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishram Prajapati For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhar-PP

¶11

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order

¶12

02/12/2024

¶13

The instant criminal writ petition has been preferred against the adverse recommendation dated 24.01.2024 by which the application submitted by the petitioner under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1958’) has been rejected.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only on the basis of apprehension raised by the Superintendent of Police that in case, the petitioner is released on parole there are chances that he may cause influence on the victim. Counsel submits that the Department of Social Justice has made recommendations in favour of the petitioner for his release on parole. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, appropriate orders be passed directing

¶15

(2 of 2) [CRLW-194/2024]

¶16

the authority concerned to release the petitioner on regular parole, in terms of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958.

¶17

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer and submitted that on the basis of the adverse report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, the order impugned has been passed which requires no interference of this Court.

¶18

Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. It is settled proposition of law that unless and until concrete evidence/documents are placed on record, that release of a prisoner would affect the peace and tranquility or the release of the petitioner would cause any pressure upon the other side i.e. the victim, his prayer for release on parole cannot be declined, simply on the basis of the apprehensions. In view of above, the impugned order, qua the petitioner is not tenable and is liable to be quashed and set aside.

¶19

Accordingly, the instant criminal writ petition stands allowed. The respondents are directed to release the petitioner on regular parole, in terms of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958 upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two surety bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the Superintendent of Jail, on usual terms and conditions. The Superintendent of Jail shall be at liberty to impose other adequate conditions to ensure the return of the petitioner to custody after availing the parole.

¶20

All other application(s), pending, if any, also stands disposed of.

¶21

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶22

Ashu/280

Subhash S/O Shri Lalaram v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash S/O Shri Lalaram 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shanker Lal S/O Balu Ram Vs State of

Kamlesh Kumar Bajia S/O Shri Mohan Lal Bajia, Vs State of Rajasthan

Anita Agarwal W/O Late Shri Rajesh Agarwal, D/O Rameshwar Das Vs the State of Rajasthan

Geeta @ Naraj W/O Gyarsilal Choudhary, B/C Jat Vs State of Rajasthan

Gulab Devi D/O Late Shri Govind Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Sarita Kumari D/O Shri Ramprasad B/C Meghwal Vs State of Rajasthan