Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT BENCH AT JAIPUR
Pankaj Bhandari, Anil Kumar Upman, JJ.
Fazlur Rehman Sufi @ Shamim - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondents
D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 320 of 2022; Connected with D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 40 of 2022; D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 231 of 2022; D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 551 of 2022
Decided On : 09-02-2023
Parole - TADA Act - Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021 - The court upheld the validity of the Rules while emphasizing that parole is a privilege, not a right, especially for those convicted under serious offenses like terrorism.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, convicted under the TADA Act, challenged certain rules of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021, while seeking parole, arguing that previous grants of parole were not considered under the new rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Rules of 2021 were not ultra-vires the Constitution and upheld the State's authority to impose restrictions on parole for serious offenses, affirming that parole is a privilege contingent on specific conditions.
Issues: Whether the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021 are ultra-vires the Constitution and whether the petitioners are entitled to parole under these rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Rules of 2021 are valid and that the right to parole is not absolute, especially for those convicted of serious crimes, and the State has the authority to impose restrictions.
Result: The court partly allowed the parole applications while rejecting the challenge to the Rules of 2021.
ORDER
Pankaj Bhandari, J. - The petitioners, who are convicted under the TADA Act and whose conviction has been upheld uptil the Supreme Court, have filed these parole applications. The petitioner - Fazlur Rehman Sufi @ Shamim has challenged Rules 6(4), 11(3) & 16(2) (c) of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 2021') and the other petitioners have simply filed the parole applications seeking parole.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were earlier granted parole by the Apex Court and some of the petitioners were thereafter granted parole by the High Court placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Asfaq Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. : (2017) 15 SCC 55. It is argued that the Rules of 2021, which have been framed by the State, are not in compliance with the directions given by the Apex Court in Asfaq case (supra). It is also argued that the law laid down by the Supreme Court becomes the law of the land and any Rule, which is framed contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court, is ultra-vires the Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioners has read over the judgment of Asfaq case.
3. Reliance is placed on the judgments in Mohammed Amin Versus The State of Rajasthan & Ors. : W.P. (Crl.) No.158 of 2018, Mohammed Shamsuddin Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.: W.P. (Crl.) No.235 of 2018, Fazlur Rehman Safi @ Shamim Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. : Criminal Appeal No.340 of 2019, Abre Rehmat Ansari Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.: W.P. (Crl.) No.284 of 2018, Mohammad Afaq Khan Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.: W.P. (Crl.) No.250 of 2018, Mohd. Aijaz Akbar Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. : W.P. (Crl.) No.186 of 2019, Mohammed Moin Faridulla Qureshi Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors.: Criminal Writ Petition No.213 of 2009, Mohammed Moin Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. : Criminal Writ Petition No.446 of 2018, Mohammed Moin Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors.: Criminal Writ Petition No.33 of 2019, Mohd. Eqbal Mohd. Hanif Shaikh Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors.: Criminal Writ Petition No.310 of 2020, Manga @ Manga Singh Versus State of Punjab & Ors. : CRWP No.4953 of 2020, Mrs. T. Arputham Versus The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. : Writ Petition No.8642 of 2020, Habib Ahmed Khan Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.: D.B. Criminal Writ Petition (Parole) No.700 of 2018, Pappu @ Salim Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16042 of 2017, Pappu @ Salim Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.: D.B. Criminal Writ Petition (Parole) No.186 of 2019, Pappu @ Salim Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.: D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.102 of 2020, Daya Singh Lathoriya Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. : D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.533 of 2020, Fazlur Rehman Sufi @ Shamim: D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.515/2020 & its connected petitions and Mohd. Aejaz Akbar Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. : D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.438/2021 & its connected petitions. Reliance is also placed on Hitesh @ Bavko Shivshankar Dave Versus State of Gujarat: Writ Petition (Criminal) No.467 of 2022 decided by the Apex Court on 24.01.2023.
4. It is argued by counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have earlier been given benefit of parole, they have surrendered in due time and they are not involved in any other offence. It is also argued that their conduct in jail is satisfactory and there is no reason why they should be denied parole. It is further argued that the basic purpose of parole is to ensure that the convict gets an opportunity to reform himself, maintain his social relations and develop a positive attitude towards life.
5. Learned Advocate General and learned Additional Solicitor General have opposed the parole applications, more particularly the challenge to Rules 6(4), 11(3) and 16(2)(c) of the Rules of 2021. It is argued that the Rules can be set aside by the Courts only on two grounds; first, if they are not wit
The court ruled that parole is a privilege, not a right, and must be granted based on satisfactory conduct and compliance with established rules.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rejection of parole applications must be based on due consideration of facts and law, and convicts should be allowed to maintain family an....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of enabling prisoners, particularly TADA convicts, to maintain family and social ties, and the criticism of mechanical rejection of ....
The court established that maintaining family ties is a significant ground for granting parole, even for life convicts, and criticized the outdated nature of existing parole rules.
The court upheld the DPAC's discretion in denying parole, emphasizing the need for valid concerns regarding law and order and the applicability of the old Parole Rules of 1958.
Parole is a conditional release aimed at the reformation of convicts, and denial based solely on non-recommendation by authorities without substantial justification is impermissible.
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.
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
