Back
PRAKASH GUPTA, UMA SHANKER VYAS
Mahendra Saini – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. This parole petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer that the petitioner be released on 4th regular parole for 40 days under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoner's (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958 (for short, 'the Rules of 1958').
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was convicted by the trial court vide judgment dated4.11.2011 for the offence under Sections 302, 460 IPC & Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. He filed a D.B. Cr. Appeal No. 634/2013 against the said judgment, which came to be dismissed. He submits that the petitioner has served about 12 years of sentence. Thus, he has served a substantive part of his sentence. The petitioner was granted 20, 30 and 40 days' regular parole, but he did not misuse the liberty granted to him and timely surrendered. He further submits that the petitioner's jail conduct is satisfactory. The petitioner filed an application before District Parole Advisory Committee for releasing him on parole, but the same has been rejected vide order dated 18.3.2021 on the ground that he did not appear in the roll call meeting in the evening,
The court established that satisfactory conduct during parole can justify further parole requests, emphasizing the rehabilitative purpose of parole.
The court considered the purpose of parole, the period already suffered by the petitioner, and the orders passed by the Coordinate Bench of the Court in similar cases to grant the petitioner 4th regu....
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....
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 ....
The policy of the State on the date of conviction would be the determinative factor in determining the entitlement of a convict for premature release.
A prisoner with satisfactory conduct and significant time served is entitled to parole unless substantial evidence indicates otherwise.
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 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....
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
