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
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. history of the case and previous appeals (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner seeks short term bail (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. arguments for and against petitioner's bail (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. representation decision overview (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. legal definitions of parole (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. conditions for granting parole (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 7. considerations for parole based on criminal history (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 8. conclusion and order of the court (Para 23 , 24) |
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 1
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.
Releasing authority must independently assess parole applications beyond district non-recommendation; good conduct prisoners entitled to temporary release for family ties despite serious offence, abs....
Parole cannot be denied solely for heinous offence; must be based on endangering state security or public order. Good conduct, agricultural need, local support warrant grant despite non-recommendatio....
Parole cannot be rejected solely for heinous nature of offence; must consider good conduct, reformation tendency, family ties maintenance, and absence of threat to public order or society.
Parole rejection invalid if solely based on offence nature without evidence of threat to state security or public order; releasing authority must independently assess good conduct and reform potentia....
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
