Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW BENCH
RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, RAJEEV BHARTI
Angad Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAJEEV BHARTI, J.
1. Heard Shri Ayodhya Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Bipul Kumar Singh, learned State Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.
2. All the aforesaid writ petitions pertain to the same petitioner as also the grievance of the petitioner is similar, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, all these petitions are being decided by a common order.
3. At present the petitioner is in jail in connection with Crime No. 835 of 1995, as he was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302/34 I.P.C. with a fine of Rs.20,000/- by learned trial court, i.e. VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow in S.T. No.579 of 1996. Being aggrieved against the conviction order, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing Criminal Appeal No.1044 of 2020, which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.03.2021. Being aggrieved against the dismissal of appeal, the petitioner approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court and filed Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 1922 of 2022, which was also dismissed vide order dated 11.03.2022, copy of which is annexed as Annexure No.C.A.
Parole is not guaranteed for convicts with serious offenses; public safety and the nature of criminal history are crucial factors in denial of short-term bail.
Parole serves to maintain family ties and facilitate rehabilitation; denial must be justified by substantial evidence of risk to public order or security.
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 – 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.
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.
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 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.
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 cannot be denied solely based on objections from the victim's family; solid evidence is required to substantiate claims of danger or public disorder.
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....
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
