Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT BENCH AT JAIPUR
Prakash Gupta, Chandra Kumar Songara, JJ.
Ranjeet Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Writ Petition No. 875 of 2021
Decided On : 22-09-2021
Parole - Permanent Parole Application - Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 - The court interpreted Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958, emphasizing the eligibility criteria for permanent parole, and found that the convict's satisfactory conduct warranted reconsideration of his application.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's brother, convicted under IPC Sections 498A and 304B, sought permanent parole after serving over 10 years. His application was denied despite satisfactory conduct and previous paroles, leading to a writ petition challenging the decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the convict's satisfactory conduct and compliance with parole conditions justified reconsideration for permanent parole, despite the State's argument regarding the heinous nature of the crime and the duration of imprisonment served.
Issues: Whether the convict-petitioner is eligible for permanent parole under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958, given his conduct and the duration of his imprisonment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the convict's satisfactory conduct and completion of required parole conditions entitled him to reconsideration for permanent parole, irrespective of the nature of the crime.
Result: The court quashed the denial of permanent parole and remanded the case for objective reconsideration by the State Government.
ORDER
1. The petitioner's brother Ranjeet Singh was convicted by the trial court for the offence under Sections 498A and 304B IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.
2. Having completed more than 10 years of sentence including permissible remissions, the convict prayed for premature permanent parole under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1958"). However, his application for permanent parole was not recommended by the Parole Committee, which was accepted by the State Government and accordingly vide communication dated 15.04.2021, the convict-petitioner was denied permanent parole. Accordingly, the petitioner's brother has approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition seeking to assail the impugned adverse recommendations and praying for a direction to release the convict petitioner on permanent parole for the remainder of his period of sentence by virtue of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958.
3. The respondents have filed a reply to the parole writ petition admitting that the conduct of the convict-prisoner has been satisfactory. It has further been mentioned that the convict-petitioner was in District Jail, Sikar and from there he was sent to Open Air Camp, Bharatpur. It has further been mentioned that the petitioner has served a period of 8 years and 9 months and 14 days sentence out of the total period of life imprisonment, therefore, the Committee did not recommend to release the convict petitioner on permanent parole.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the convict-petitioner has already availed three regular paroles of 20, 30 and 40 days. He surrendered himself before the concerned authority on due date. After consideration with regard to good conduct, the convict petitioner was shifted to Open Air Camp. There was no complaint against him during the parole period. He further submits that other persons who were convicted for the offence under Sections 498A and 304B IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment have been granted permanent parole by the State Level Parole Committee in its meeting dated 30.7.2019, whereas the convict-petitioner has been denied permanent parole. Therefore, the action of the respondents is discriminatory in nature and he is entitled to be released on permanent parole.
5. Learned GA-cum-AAG appearing for the respondents-State has opposed the same and submits that the convict-petitioner has been convicted for the offence of dowry death and the said offence falls within the category of a heinous one. He has defended the impugned communication dated 15.4.2021.
6. The respondents have tried to explain the situation by mentioning that those prisoners, who have been granted permanent parole, had served significantly longer terms of imprisonment as compared to the convict petitioner before their cases were considered and recommended for permanent parole. It is also mentioned that the petitioner has undergone only 10 years, 8 months and 22 days and thus, a short term of stay in the prison is not sufficient so as to entitle him for release on permanent parole.
7. We have heard and appreciated the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the statutory provision i.e. Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958 and various orders placed on record.
8. Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958 is reproduced herein below for the sake of ready reference:-
AI
Satisfactory conduct and compliance with parole conditions can warrant eligibility for permanent parole, regardless of the crime's severity.
Conviction for a serious crime does not automatically bar parole eligibility.
The conviction for a serious or heinous crime by itself cannot operate as an absolute bar for denying parole to the prisoner who has otherwise acquired eligibility for release on parole.
The court ruled that parole eligibility is determined by the rules in force at the time of conviction, not by subsequent amendments, ensuring the principle of non-retroactivity in law.
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 ....
Permanent parole cannot be denied solely on the basis of not availing three regular paroles without adverse evidence.
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
