Back
2023 Supreme(Raj) 983
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, Ashok Kumar Jain , JJ.
Hanja Devi – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through The Collector, Nagaur & Ors. – Respondent
D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 410/2022
Decided On : 16-01-2023
Mr. Ganpat Lal Prajapat, Advocate and Mr. Vishal Singhal, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Pallav Sharma assistant to Mr. Anil Joshi, GA-cum-AAG, for the Respondent.
Exclusion of offences with death sentence as one of the penalties under Rule 10 of Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021.
Headnote:
Parole - Entitlement of Parole for Offence Punishable under Section 302 IPC - Exclusion of Offence with Death Sentence - Court's Interpretation of Rule 10 of Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought parole for his son who was undergoing a sentence for about 8 years and 7 months for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The petitioner claimed entitlement to parole based on the period served and remission. The court analyzed the relevant judgment and Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that neither the Division Bench judgment nor Rule 10 entitled the petitioner's son to parole, as there was an exclusion of offences with death sentence as one of the penalties.
Issues: Entitlement to parole for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, interpretation of Rule 10 of Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Rule 10 and found that the petitioner's son was not entitled to parole due to the exclusion of offences with death sentence as one of the penalties.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and all pending applications were disposed of. The petitioner's son was given liberty to move a fresh application if he becomes entitled to parole in the future as per the Rules.
ORDER
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s son-Mehraram @ Rajesh, who is undergoing sentence in District Jail, Nagaur, is entitled for parole as he has already served the sentence of about 08 years 07 months 08 days as on 01.12.2022 with remission for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court passed in the case of Nema Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.59/2021) decided on 15.03.2021, the relevant portion of which, reads as follows:-
"Manifestly, as death sentence is not one of the penalties provided by law for the offence under Section 376(2)(g) IPC for which, the convict-petitioner has been convicted, he does not suffer from statutory ineligibility for claiming permanent parole. Thus, the impugned recommendations dated 11.01.2021 are quashed and set aside. The State Government shall reconsider the case of the convict-petitioner for grant of permanent parole objectively and decide the same by a reasoned order within a period of two months from today.
The writ petition is allowed in these terms."
3. Mr. Pallav Sharma assistant to GA-cum-AAG for the respondent-State, however, drew the attention of this Court towards the proviso to Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021, which reads as under:-
"10. Parole Period.- A prisoner, who has completed with remission, if any, one-fourth of his sentence and subject to good conduct in the Jail, may be released on first parole for twenty days including days of journey to home and back and for thirty days on second parole if his behaviour has been good during the first parole and for fourty days on third parole if his behaviour has been good during the second parole. If during the third parole also the prisoner has behaved well and his character has been exceedingly well and if the prisoner’s conduct has been such that he is not likely to relapse into crime, his case may be recommended to the Government through the State Committee for permanent release on parole if he has served two third of sentence including remission on such conditions as deemed fit by the State Committee. The State Government may, on recommendation of the State Committee, grant parole on such conditions as deemed necessary by it among them the main condition being that if the prisoner while on parole commits any offence or abets, directly or indirectly, commission of any offence, he has to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence in addition to any sentence imposed upon him for such an offence. In case the permanent release on parole is rejected, the prisoner shall be eligible for release on parole for fourty days every year on the same conditions for the remaining period of his sentence:
Provided that the cases of prisoners who have been sentenced to imprisonment for life, for an offence for which death penalty is one of the punishments provided by law or who have been sentenced to death but this sentence has been commuted under section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 into one of life imprisonment shall not be placed before the State Committee for permanent release on parole unless he has served fourteen years of imprisonment excluding remission, but including the period of detention during enquiry, investigation or trial. Such prisoners may be released on parole for fourty days every year for the remaining period of their sentence subject to the conditions as stated above.
Provided further that if a prisoner has not applied any regular periodic parole or not availed any regular parole for any reason shall not be disqualified for permanent parole.
Provided further that if a prisoner has not applied any regular periodic parole or not availed any regular parole for any reason shall not be disqualified for permanent parole."
4. In light of the aforesaid position of law, this Court is of the opinion that neit
