Back
NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Sunil @ Sameer @ Lalu – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER
1. This parole petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer that the order dated 8.4.2021 issued pursuant to the meeting of Permanent Parole Committee dated 10.3.2021 whereby the petitioner has been denied permanent parole on the ground of non availing of three regular paroles.
2. It has been submitted in the petition that the learned Special Judge POCSO Act-2012 and Child Protection Commission Act 2005 No.3, Alwar vide its order dt. 14.2.2019 convicted the petitioner for the offence under Sections 376(1) of IPC for life imprisonment and in default of payment of fine Rs. 10,000/- to further undergo 3 months additional RI and Section 11/12 of POCSO Act, for 3 years RI and in default of payment of fine Rs. 3,000/- to further undergo one month RI and Section 14(1) of POCSO Act, 2012 for five years RI and in default of payment of Rs. 3,000/- to further undergo one month additional RI and Section 67 of IT Act for three years RI in default of payment of 10,000/- to further undergo one month additional RI and Section 67(b) of IT Act for five years RI and in default of payment of fine Rs.20,000/- to further undergo one months additional RI. All
Denial of permanent parole on technical grounds requires adverse evidence; good conduct can warrant parole eligibility.
Permanent parole cannot be denied solely on the basis of not availing three regular paroles without adverse evidence.
Non-availing of three regular paroles is not a sufficient ground to deny permanent parole, especially when the petitioner has demonstrated good conduct and behavior during previous paroles.
Non-availing of three regular paroles is not a sound ground for refusal of permanent parole, especially when the petitioner has served a substantive part of the sentence and has a good conduct record....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the non-availment of three regular paroles is not a valid ground for refusal of permanent parole, especially when the petitioner demonstrates ....
Non-availing of three regular paroles is not a sound ground for refusal of permanent parole, especially when the petitioner has demonstrated good conduct during previous paroles.
Non-availing of three regular paroles is not a sufficient ground to deny permanent parole, especially when the petitioner has demonstrated good conduct and behavior during previous paroles.
The non-availing of three regular paroles is not a sufficient ground to deny permanent parole, especially when the petitioner has demonstrated good conduct during previous paroles and there is no adv....
The Court emphasized the importance of considering the petitioner's conduct during previous paroles, the period of sentence served, and the absence of evidence supporting the allegations in determini....
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
