Back
SANDEEP MEHTA, MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Bhawani Singh – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
ORDER
1. The instant parole writ petition has been filed by the convict-petitioner Bhawani Singh S/o Mahaveer Singh assailing the adverse recommendations dated 23.04.2021 drawn by the District Parole Advisory Committee, Churu in its meeting dated 20.04.2021, whereby the application for second parole filed by the petitioner was dismissed. It is relevant to mention here that the fact regarding the convict petitioner having availed first parole of 20 days satisfactorily is admitted. It is also admitted that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 9 years. It is relevant to mention here that the District Parole Advisory Committee, Churu rejected the parole application of the convict-petitioner on the premise that 3 accused, namely, Bhawani Singh, the petitioner herein, Vijay Singh @ Birju Singh and Kaptan Singh, all of whom are residents of the same village, had been convicted in the same case. If all 3 were released on parole simultaneously, it could give wrong message in the society. Citing this reason, the District Parole Advisory Committee rejected the parole application of the convict-petitioner while granting parole to the other two.
2. By order dated 15.07.2021, we had
The court established that parole applications must be considered fairly and rationally, and not rejected mechanically without proper justification.
Parole applications from family members should be considered individually, and the simultaneous applications of related convicts cannot be a valid reason for denying parole.
The court emphasized that the mere fact of serving a sentence for a heinous crime cannot be the sole reason to deny parole, and specific reasons must be provided to curtail or deny parole.
Parole is a concession for good behavior, not a right, and must be granted with consideration of rehabilitation, irrespective of family objections, unless supported by independent evaluation.
Parole rules are intended to facilitate the reintegration of convicts into society, and apprehensions of absconding can be addressed by requiring heavy bail and bonds.
The court established that the denial of parole must be based on justifiable grounds and that concerns regarding absconding can be mitigated through appropriate conditions.
Denial of parole should be based on justifiable grounds, and apprehension of breach of law and order can be addressed by imposing appropriate conditions and requiring sureties.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
