Allowed

Pannalal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC22 Apr 2024CRLW/621/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition filed by a petitioner seeking bail. The court noted that police and social justice department reports were mechanical and lacked factual basis. The impugned order denying parole was set aside, and the petitioner was directed to be released on 20 days' parole after furnishing bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of 26.12.2023 set aside. Petitioner directed to be released on first parole of 20 days after furnishing two sureties of Rs.25,000 each and personal bond of Rs.50,000.

Pannalal Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:17322-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 621/2024

¶4

Panna Lal S/o Shri Mangi Lal, Aged About 50 Years, At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur R/o Vala Ka Kunva Mogna PS Nathdwara District Rajsamand Through His Sister-in-law Kalu Lal Gamti S/o Shri Navla Ram, Aged About 47 Years R/o Vinayak Tekary, Unthal PS Nathdwara, District Rajsamand.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan, Department of Home, Jaipur. 2. The District Collector, Rajsamand. 3. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Udaipur.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Kalu Ram Bhati
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Anil Joshi, GA-cum-AAG assisted
	byMr. Rajat Chhaparwal

¶10

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

¶11

Order

¶12

22/04/2024

¶13

The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner, who is in custody at Central Jail, Udaipur for granting him first 20 days' parole.

¶14

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 26.12.2023. It is against this rejection, the petitioner is in writ. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner applied for grant of 20 days' parole before the District Parole

¶15

[2024:RJ-JD:17322-DB]

¶16

[CRLW-621/2024]

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

Advisory Committee, Rajsamand but the same came to be dismissed vide order dated 26.12.2023 on account of the fact that police authority has given adverse report. It is submitted that if the report of the jail authority are seen then it is clear that the jail authority has recommended for grant of parole to the petitioner.

¶19

Learned AAG has submitted that since the victim’s family members as well as the neighbours have objected for releasing the petitioner on first 20 days' parole, the Committee has rightly rejected his application for releasing him on first 20 days' parole. It is also submitted that with the release of the petitioner on parole, there is all possibility that the law and order situation may be disturbed.

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶21

The petitioner is in custody since 8 years, 4 months, 20 days including remission. He is otherwise entitled for the parole, but has been denied the same only on account of the adverse report made by the Social Justice and Empowerment Department. The report indicates mechanical application of mind. No specific incidence has been pointed out. The conduct of the petitioner in the Jail is satisfactory. The police report is also mechanical without any specific inputs for depriving the petitioner's prayer for parole. This Court is conscious of the fact that the petitioner is at present lodged in Open Air Camp, Shri Shiv Gau Seva Sadan, Sangariya, District Hanumangarh since 17.09.2023.

¶22

Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 26.12.2023 is set aside so far as it relates to petitioner. The petitioner – Panna Lal S/o Shri Mangi Lal is directed to be

¶23

[2024:RJ-JD:17322-DB]

¶24

[CRLW-621/2024]

¶25

(3 of 3)

¶26

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, Central Jail, Udaipur. The Superintendent, Central Jail concerned 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.

¶27

This Court however observes that since the report of the police is adverse though without there being any factual basis, 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.

¶28

A copy of this order may be sent to the convict.

¶29

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

¶30

40-Neha/Dinesh/-

Pannalal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pannalal 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

Manju Vs State of Rajasthan

Dharampal Jat Vs State of Rajasthan

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax- Udaipur Vs M/S Saileela Synthetics Pvt. Ltd.

Govind Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Jethi Devi Vs the State of Rajasthan

State of Rajasthan Vs Bhanwar Lal