Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Sandeep Mehta, Sameer Jain, JJ.
Gulveer S/o Shri Lal Chand - Appellant
Versus
State, Home Dept. , Jaipur & Ors. - Respondents
D. B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 541/2021
Decided On : 09-11-2021
PAROLE - PETITION FOR PAROLE - The court quashed the District Parole Advisory Committee's recommendation to deny the petitioner's parole application, emphasizing that the simultaneous release of family members should not be a reason for rejection. The court established that each application must be considered individually, and the petitioner was granted parole upon fulfilling specified conditions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Gulveer, sought to challenge the rejection of his parole application by the District Parole Advisory Committee, which denied his request on the grounds that multiple family members had applied for parole simultaneously.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the reasons for rejecting the petitioner's parole application were insufficient and that the simultaneous release of family members should not automatically disqualify an individual from receiving parole.
Issues: Whether the rejection of the petitioner's parole application based on the simultaneous applications of family members was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that each parole application must be evaluated on its own merits, and the existence of other family members' applications should not be a blanket reason for denial.
Result: The court allowed the petitioner's parole application, quashing the previous recommendations and directing his release on parole after the other family members completed their parole periods.
ORDER
1. The petitioner Gulveer S/o Lalchand has filed the instant parole writ petition seeking to assail the recommendations dated 29.07.2021 drawn by the District Parole Advisory Committee, Hanumangarh in its meeting dated 15.07.2021, whereby his application for first parole of 20 days has been rejected.
2. The Committee turned down the prayer of the convict-petitioner for being released on parole on the ground that as per the police report, four convicts belonging to the same family including the present petitioner, have applied for grant of parole and thus, it would not be just and proper to release all these four co-convicts on parole simultaneously. The co-convict Lalchand (father of the petitioner) and Palaram (brother of the petitioner) have been granted first parole by the same order i.e. 29.07.2021. Vinod, being the other brother of the petitioner, has been granted parole by this court vide order dated 18.09.2021 passed in D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.484/2021.
3. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances as available on record, we are inclined to accept the instant parole petition, which is hereby allowed. The impugned recommendations dated 29.07.2021 drawn by the District Parole Advisory Committee, Hanumangarh in its meeting dated 15.07.2021 are quashed and set aside qua the petitioner and it is directed that after the co-convict Lalchand (father of the petitioner) and Pala Ram and Vinod (brothers of the petitioner) complete their first parole period and surrender back at the prison, the petitioner Gulveer S/o Lalchand shall be released on first parole of twenty days upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs. 1,00,000/- each to the satisfaction of Superintendent Central Jail, Bikaner on the usual terms and conditions. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Bikaner shall be at liberty to impose other adequate and reasonable conditions to ensure return of the convict to the custody after availing the parole. The term of parole shall be computed from the date of his actual release.
4. We further clarify that in similar circumstances, when the parole applications are filed by more than one convicts belonging to the same family, the same shall not be rejected citing the reason that the other family members have been released on parole. In such circumstances, the parole application of convicts, who are not being released on parole for this reason, shall be kept pending and shall be considered after parole facility has been availed by the other related convicts. A copy of this order shall be transmitted to the Director General of Prisons, Rajasthan and the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Rajasthan for onward transmission to all the District Collectors in the State of Rajasthan.
The court established that parole applications must be considered fairly and rationally, and not rejected mechanically without proper justification.
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.
The court emphasized that the reasoning for denying parole must consider the convict's family situation and the rehabilitative purpose of parole, as established in precedent.
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
