Allowed

Toofan v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC23 Apr 2024CRLW/348/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted first parole to a prisoner convicted under IPC 302 and Arms Act. The court held that vague law and order concerns and adverse police reports cannot override the petitioner's eligibility and the purpose of parole as a reformation device, directing release subject to sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner is directed to be released on first parole of 20 days, furnishing two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each and a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-.

Toofan Vs State of Rajasthan — Execution and Attachment | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:17600-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 348/2024

¶4

Toofan S/o Shri Nanu Ram, Aged About 30 Years, At Present Lodged In High Security, Central Jail, Ajmer Through His Brother Ranjeet S/o Shri Nanu Ram, Age About 28 Years, R/o Village Kadmali, P.s. Khothwali, Tehsil Nimbada, District Chhitorgarh At Present Rampuria District Nimbach Madhya Pradesh.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Home Department Jaipur (Raj)

¶8

The District Collector, Chhitorgarh.

¶9

The Superintendent, High Security, Central Jail, Ajmer. ----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Kaluram Bhati
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Anil Joshi, GA cum AAG a/w Mr. Pallav Sharma

¶11

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

¶12

Order

¶13

23/04/2024

¶14

The instant petition has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner who is languishing in Central Jail, Ajmer being convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC and 4/25 of Arms Act.

¶15

The petitioner applied for his release on parole under the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (For short hereinafter called 'the Rules'). The authorities rejected the application made by the petitioner by their order dated 09.02.2024. It is against this rejection, the petitioner is in writ.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a positive report to release the present petitioner on first parole from the Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh. He further submits

¶17

[2024:RJ-JD:17600-DB]

¶18

[CRLW-348/2024]

¶19

(2 of 3)

¶20

that denial of the Social Justice and Empowerment Department, Chittorgarh is only on the ground that both the parties are close relatives and have enmity between them and release of the accused prisoner could be detrimental to their safety.

¶21

The Jail Department has submitted its reply. 5. Learned GA cum AAG opposes the petition and submits that with the release of the petitioner on parole, there is all possibility that the law and order situation may be disturbed and the jail authority has also submitted a dissatisfactory report about the jail conduct of the petitioner which includes a mobile having been found in his custody, thus, the Committee has rightly rejected his application for releasing him on 20 days' parole..

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. This Court does not find any sufficient and aggravating reasons as to how the positive report of Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh could be declined merely on the ground that there is a possibility of law and order being affected upon the release of the petitioner. The State has to maintain the law and order, which is their duty and while not having any specific input to deprive the petitioner of first parole which include falling in the exception of the parole required the petitioner to be released on parole. The recovery of mobile from the prisoner reflects the conduct of jail authority itself.

¶23

The convict has already undergone a sentence of 07 years, 02 months and 12 days with remission as on 19.02.2024. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner does not suffer from any ineligibility for his release on parole as prescribed under Rule 16

¶24

[2024:RJ-JD:17600-DB]

¶25

[CRLW-348/2024]

¶26

(3 of 3)

¶27

of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021. More so, Ipsi dixit reason of adverse police report cannot be a ground for refusing parole. It is well settled that parole is a device for reformation of a criminal for his rehabilitation in society. The object of parole can’t be frustrated on the basis of vague and illfounded reasons.

¶28

Accordingly, this petition is allowed and convict prisoner – Toofan S/o Shri Nanu Ram is directed to be released on first parole of 20 days strictly in accordance with the provisions of Parole Rules after ensuring its strict compliance as required before his release, provided he furnishes two sureties in a sum of Rs.25,000/- each and a personal-bond of Rs.50,000/- to the satisfaction of Superintendent, High Security, Central Jail, Ajmer. The concerned jail authority will give a date for surrender of convict and shall also be at liberty to impose other reasonable and adequate conditions to ensure his return to the State custody after availing the parole.

¶29

This Court directs that if during the period in which the prisoner is released on parole indulge in any kind of offence or/and any report is lodged against him of any offence, then in such event, the parole granted to him shall stand cancelled.

¶30

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

¶31

27-Sudheer/-

Toofan v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Toofan 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

Govind Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Jethi Devi Vs the State of Rajasthan

State of Rajasthan Vs Bhanwar Lal

Gopal Ram and Ors. Vs State

State of Rajasthan Vs Dhool Singh and Ors.

Deepak Vs State of Rajasthan