?HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

D.B. Criminal Writ Petition(Parole) No. 381/2022

Anil Kumar @ Kaley S/o Shri Om Prakash, Aged About 33 Years,

R/o 296/9, Subhash Nagar Gurugram, Police Station City

Gurugram, District Gurugram (Haryana) (At Present Confined In

Open Air Camp Alwar) Through His Wife- Smt. Ram Bala W/o

Shri Anil Kumar @ Kaley, Aged About 32 Years, R/o 296/9,

Subhash Nagar Gurugram, Police Station City Gurugram, District

Gurugram (Hariyana)

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department

Of Home, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.

2.

The Director General Of Prisons, Directorate Prison,

Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3.

The Superintendent, Central Jail, Alwar.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. B.R. Choudhary

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. N.S. Gurjar, Assistant Govt.

Advocate

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

Order

02/02/2023

1.

Petitioner has preferred this writ petition(parole) with the

prayer that petitioner be granted permanent parole under Rule 10

of Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021.

2.

It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner’s

application for permanent parole was rejected by the State Parole

Advisory Committee vide Annexure-1. It is also contended that

ground for rejection of the prayer for permanent parole was on

account of petitioner being convicted for the offence under Section

(2 of 4)

[CRLW-381/2022]

364 of IPC and that there is bar under Rule 16(2)(b) of Rajasthan

Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021(hereinafter referred as

Rules, 2021).

3.

Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon

Hadmant Singh vs State of Rajasthan & Ors, D.B. Criminal

Writ Petition No.264/2022, Sabu Singh vs State of Rajasthan &

Ors., D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.545/2022 and Raju @

Rajkumar vs State of Rajasthan & Ors., D.B. Criminal Writ

Petition No.314/2022.

4.

Learned Assistant Govt. Advocate has opposed the petition.

It is contended that there is specific bar under Rule 16(2)(b) of

Rules, 2021.

5.

We have considered the contentions and perused the

relevant Rules.

6.

As per the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules,

2021, Rule 16(2)(b) reads as under:-

“(2) The following categories of prisoners shall

not be eligible for release on parole:-

(b)

Prisoners convicted under section 326-A,

364, 364-A, 376-A, 376-B, 376-E, 396, 460 of The

Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 376 connected

with 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(rape with

murder).”

From perusal of same, it is evident that the above categories of

prisoners are not entitled to be released on parole under new

Rules.

7.

Petitioner was convicted vide judgment and sentence dated

02.02.2007 and at that relevant time, Rules which were in force

were the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958.

Under the Rules then prevalent, Rule 9 pertained to permanent

release on parole which provided that a person sentenced to life

(3 of 4)

[CRLW-381/2022]

imprisonment was entitled to be released on permanent parole, if

he has served 14 years of imprisonment excluding remission, but

including the period of detention passed during enquiry,

investigation or trial.

8.

In Hitesh @ Bavko Shivshankar Dave vs State of

Gujarat, Writ Petition(Criminal) No.467/2022 decided by

Apex Court on 24.01.2023, the Court was dealing with entitlement

of a convict for premature release. The Court observed that the

policy which was prevalent on the date of conviction would apply,

however, if it is subsequently liberalized to provide more beneficial

terms, those should be borne in mind. In the present case in hand

as per Rules prevalent on the date of conviction, petitioner would

be entitled to be considered for release on permanent parole.

9.

In the present case co-accused Mannu, Aman Jat, Suresh

and Ashwani have already been given benefit of permanent

parole, which fac