Back
DINESH MEHTA, RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI
Moti Ram – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The instant parole writ petition has been preferred by the convict-petitioner Motiram S/o Deva Ram, who has been convicted for the offence under Section 376(2)(f) IPC and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act.
2. The convict-petitioner applied for his release on second parole under the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to 'the Rules'). The District Parole Advisory Committee, Deedwana-Kuchaman (hereinafter referred as the 'Parole Committee') rejected the application vide order dated 10.10.2023 and learned District Magistrate Deedwana Kuchaman informed the wife of convict-petitioner about the rejection of parole application vide letter dated 13.01.2024. It is against this rejection, the convict-petitioner is in writ.
3. It was submitted by learned counsel that the petitioner was granted 20 days parole vide order dated 12.02.2020, passed by the Court in D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 540/2019.
4. While highlighting that it is petitioner's statutory right to get second parole, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that reasons given by the District Parole Advisory Committee, Deedwana-Kuchaman are not relevant particularly when concerned jail
The court emphasized balancing the statutory rights of the convict with the victim's safety, allowing parole under strict conditions to prevent contact.
Release on Parole – Balance has to be struck between safety and emotional aspect of victim and statutory rights of accused.
Parole – Balance has to be struck between safety and emotional aspect of victim and statutory rights of accused.
The court affirmed the statutory right to parole, emphasizing rehabilitation and the necessity of balancing victim safety with the rights of the accused.
The court emphasized that the mere fact of serving a sentence for a heinous crime cannot be the sole reason to deny parole, and specific reasons must be provided to curtail or deny parole.
The court emphasized the need for substantiated grounds to reject a parole application and considered the petitioner's entitlement to parole benefits based on previous compliance and lack of material....
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
