Dismissed

Renu Alais Rajveer Singh S/O Babu Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC10 Oct 2025CRLW/776/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A DB Criminal Writ Petition challenging the dismissal of a prayer for 20 days' parole. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the party remained ineligible under Rule 14(c) of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 due to prior escape and lack of required recommendations and special reasons.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition assailing the order rejecting the prayer for 20 days' parole was dismissed.

Renu Alais Rajveer Singh S/O Babu Singh Vs State of… — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:41407-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Criminal Writ Petition (Parole) No.776/2025

¶4

Renu Alais Rajveer Singh S/o Babu Singh, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Sawan Bhado, Police Station Kanwas, At Present Residence Of Durga Basti, Police Station Dadabari, Kota City (Raj.) (At Present Confined In Central Jail Kota).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Inspector General, Prison, Jaipur.

¶8

The State Parole Committee, Through Joint Secretary, Department Of Home, Jaipur.

¶9

The Superintendent, Central Jail, Kota.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shiv Shanker Choudhary, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, Dy.G.A.

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶13

Order

¶14

10/10/2025

¶15

(Per: PRAVEER BHATNAGAR, J.)

¶16

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 05.11.2024, whereby the respondent authority dismissed the petitioner’s prayer for releasing him on 20 days' parole.

¶17

It is vehemently argued that the petitioner has already undergone a sentence of 20 years, including remission and that his conduct and behaviour in jail have been good and unblemished. It is further submitted that as per Rule 9 of the

¶18

[2025:RJ-JP:41407-DB]

¶19

[CRLW-776/2025]

¶20

(2 of 4)

¶21

Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1958”), a prisoner who has completed with remission, one-fourth of his sentence, may be released on parole. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that the adverse conduct referred to in the impugned order pertains to an earlier incident and is irrelevant for the present consideration of parole.

¶22

Learned Deputy Government Advocate justifies the impugned order passed by the respondent and contended that the petitioner remained absconded from Open Air Camp, Beechhwal, Bikaner, for a period of three months, for which FIR No.54/2016 was lodged at Police Station Ramganjmandi, District Kota and the petitioner was subsequently arrested on 30.01.2017. It is further submitted that as per the report of the Superintendent of Police, Kota, the petitioner and his family members are not residing at Durga Basti, Jawahar Nagar, Kota City and the petitioner had stayed there only for about four to five months in the year 1995. It was also found that the petitioner is neither a resident of village Sawan Bhado nor is in any relation with the villagers. In this regard, the District Probation and Jail Welfare Officer, Social Justice and Empowerment Department, Kota, has also submitted that the petitioner’s family members are not residing at the given address and that the neighbours are unwilling to guarantee his parole. Given the petitioner’s previous conduct and the adverse reports, it was concluded that he is not entitled to the grant of parole.

¶23

Heard and perused the material available on record.

¶24

[2025:RJ-JP:41407-DB]

¶25

[CRLW-776/2025]

¶26

(3 of 4)

¶27

It is admitted that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Kota vide judgment dated 06.10.2007 in Session Case No.12/2007 for the offences under Sections 302 of IPC and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act and was sentenced to life imprisonment. The petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.313/2008 against the above judgment, which came to be dismissed by the Division Bench vide order dated 10.02.2016, considering Rule 9 of the Rules 1958.

¶28

Rule 14 of the Rules 1958 reads as follows:-

¶29

“14. Ineligibility for release. - The following classes of prisoners will ordinarily not be eligible for release on parole:-

¶30

(a) persons whose ordinary place of residence is outside the State of Rajasthan or who have been convicted by a Court Martial or a Court of another State;

¶31

(b) Persons convicted under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908;

¶32

¶33

(d) Persons who have been convicted for offences under sections 121 to 140, 216A, 302, 303, 311, 328, 332, 364, 386, 387, 388, 389, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 401, 402, 413, 455, 458, 459 and 460 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860;

¶34

unless they have undergone [one-fourth] of the sentence, including remission, and the Superintendent of Jail recommends the case in consultation with the District Magistrate, with special reasons therefor. In granting parole to prisoners sentenced u/s. 302 I.P.C. the circumstances of the case under which the murder was committed, such as murder committed for possession of land or over the honour of women or as a result of family feuds shall be kept in view and favourably considered for parole.”

¶35

[2025:RJ-JP:41407-DB]

¶36

[CRLW-776/2025]

¶37

(4 of 4)

¶38

Rule 14(c) of the Rules of 1958 explicitly provides that a prisoner who has escaped or attempted to escape from jail or police custody shall ordinarily not be eligible for release on parole, subject to the rider that the Superintendent of Jail recommends the case in consultation with the District Magistrate, with special reasons therefore. There is neither a recommendation made from the Superintendent of Jail nor special reasons assigned for releasing the petitioner on parole for 20 days.

¶39

The petitioner has not been in a position to controvert the factual aspects that the petitioner remained absconded for 3 months from Open Air Camp Beechhwal, Bikaner and for the same FIR No.54/2016 was lodged at Police Station Ramganj Mandi, District Kota. The petitioner has also failed to controvert the fact that the petitioner is not residing at the village Sawan Bhado and the villagers are also not inclined to submit their surety and if the petitioner is released on parole then there may be strong probability that petitioner shall again indulged in commission of crime. Therefore, considering the above facts, the concerned Authority has rightly rejected the petitioner's prayer to grant him regular parole for 20 days.

¶40

Accordingly, the instant writ petition is devoid of any merit, hence dismissed.

¶41

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶42

(AVNEESH JHINGAN),J

¶43

Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-9

Renu Alais Rajveer Singh S/O Babu Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Renu Alais Rajveer Singh S/O Babu 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

Mohd Aejaz Akbar S/O Abdul Majeed Vs the Uinon of India

State Vs Kailash and Ors.

Smt. Vidhya Sharma W/O Shri Jawahar Lal Sharma, Vs Pawan Kumar Goyal

Renu Alias Rajveer Singh S/O Shri Babu Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Balbharam S/O Shri Ghasiram Vs State of Rajasthan

Shri Banwari Lal Bhukar S/O Shri Tulchha Ram, Vs Shri Bhawani Singh Detha