Allowed

Sohan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Where a convict granted parole belongs to the lower economic echelon – family being daily-wage labourers holding a BPL card

Rajasthan HC5 Feb 2025CRLW/117/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Convict under Section 302 IPC sought relaxation of the Parole Advisory Committee's condition requiring two sureties of Rs.1,00,000/- each for 30 days' parole, citing poverty and BPL status. The Court relaxed the surety condition, allowing release on a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- alone.

What did the court decide?

Surety condition relaxed; petitioner to be released on 30 days' parole on personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- only; other conditions unchanged.

Sohan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JD:7286-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 117/2025

¶4

Sohan Singh S/o Bacchan Singh, Aged About 55 Years, At Present Lodged In Open Air Camp, Nohar Hanumangarh. Through His Brother Sunil Kumar S/o Sh. Bachhan Singh R/o Chak 03 Rk Rohi, Rathi Kheda Ps Tb, Dist. Hanumangarh.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

The District Collector, Hanumangarh

¶9

The Dy Supp District Jail, Hanumangarh

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kalu Ram Bhati For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.K. Gurjar, AAG

¶12

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI

¶13

Order

¶14

05/02/2025

¶15

This parole petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner aggrieved with the condition imposed by the District Parole Advisory Committee, Hanumangarh vide order dated 26.11.2024 for furnishing two sureties of Rs.1,00,000/- each with a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- for the purpose of availing second 30 days’ parole.

¶16

The petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced for life imprisonment by the learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh vide judgment dated 23.04.2008. He has already undergone the sentence of 11 years, 6 months and 2 days. The petitioner was granted first parole for 20 days, which was successfully completed by him, and now, he has again

[2025:RJ-JD:7286-DB]

[CRLW-117/2025]

(2 of 3)

granted the benefit of second parole by the District Parole Advisory Committee, Hanumangarh vide order dated 26.11.2024 for the period of 30 days.

¶21

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner belongs to lower echelon of the society and thus he is not in a position to furnish two sureties of Rs.1,00,000/- each as ordered and on account of such inability, the petitioner is being deprived of the parole and, therefore, he may be granted 30 days’ parole on furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs.1,00,000/-.

¶22

Though the prayer is opposed by the learned AAG; however, in the factual report, it is indicated that the family members of the petitioner are daily wages labour; they hold a BPL Card and their economic status is not good. 5. Looking to the fact that the petitioner was granted benefit of first parole of 20 days, which was successfully completed by him, and the second parole of 30 days’ has also been granted by the District Parole Advisory Committee, Hanumangarh vide order dated 26.11.2024 as well as the status report submitted by the learned AAG along with the reply, reflects poor economic status of the family of the petitioner. This Court deems it appropriate to relax the condition of furnishing two sureties of Rs.1,00,000/each as imposed vide order dated 26.11.2024.

¶23

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and after going through the record, this parole petition is allowed and the Superintendent, District Jail, Hanumangarh is directed to release the petitioner - Sohan Singh S/o Bacchan Singh on 30 day’ parole on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- only. The

¶24

[2025:RJ-JD:7286-DB] (3 of 3) [CRLW-117/2025]

¶25

condition of furnishing two sureties of Rs.1,00,000/- each is hereby relaxed.

¶26

All the other conditions imposed vide order dated 26.11.2024 shall remain the same.

¶27

(CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

¶28

72-Hanuman/-

Sohan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sohan Singh 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

Dilip Singhvi Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Bpu)

Dilip Singhvi Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Bpu)

Dilip Singhvi Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Bpu)

Dashrath Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S Laxmi Agency Vs Union of India

Ramkishor Regar Vs State of Rajasthan