Back
PANKAJ BHANDARI, ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Fazlur Rehman Sufi @ Shamim – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
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
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that maintaining family ties is a significant ground for granting parole, even for life convicts, and criticized the outdated nature of existing parole rules.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
