Back
MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI
Asha Ram @ Ashumal – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER :
(Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, A.C.J.)
By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner assails correctness and validity of order dated 22.08.2023 by which his application for grant of first parole of 20 days has been rejected by the District Parole Advisory Committee, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the DPAC').
2. The petitioner was convicted for offence under Sections 370 (4), 342, 506, 120B, 354A, 376(D), 376(2)(F), 509 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'), Section 23 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2000") and Section 5(g)/6,7/8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'the POCSO Act of 2012') and sentenced with life imprisonment for remainder of natural life vide judgment of conviction and order sentence dated 25.04.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases, Jodhpur in Session Case No.116/2016. The petitioner has filed an appeal which has been registered as D.B. Criminal Appeal No.123/2018 against judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which is pending.
3. The petitioner w
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 concession for good behavior, not a right, and must be granted with consideration of rehabilitation, irrespective of family objections, unless supported by independent evaluation.
The court ruled that parole is a privilege, not a right, and must be granted based on satisfactory conduct and compliance with established rules.
Parole serves to maintain family ties and facilitate rehabilitation; denial must be justified by substantial evidence of risk to public order or security.
Parole – Convicts have right to breathe fresh air for short periods – Any objection raised by local inhabitants/relative cannot be sole determinative basis for refusing parole.
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....
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.
Parole cannot be denied solely based on the nature of the crime if the convict exhibits good conduct and a tendency to reform, ensuring the maintenance of family ties is critical.
Parole cannot be denied solely based on the nature of the conviction; maintaining family ties and demonstrating good conduct are paramount for rehabilitation and reform.
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
