[2025:RJ-JD:36954-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1264/2025 Lala Alias Lalshankar Alias Jigar S/o Gattu Lal, Aged About 30 Years, At Present Lodged In Central Jail Udaipur through his father Shri Gattu Lal S/o Somaji Age About 55 Years R/o village Petfala Dadiya P. S. Dambola District Dungarpur ----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan, Through PP

2. The Director General (Jails), Jaipur

3. The District Collector, Dungarpur

4. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Udaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kalu Ram Bhati For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, GA Cum AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA

Order

19/08/2025

1. By way of present petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 08.04.2025 passed by the State Government whereby petitioner’s application for grant of permanent parole has been rejected by the State Government while observing thus :- “cUnh }kjk e`R;qn.M dh /kkjk 376Mh vkbZ-ih-lh- esa fnukad 13-02-2025 rd 11 o"kZ 03 ekg 03 fnol ltk e; fopkjk/khu vof/k ds ¼fcuk ifjgkj½ Hkqxrh xbZ gSA tcfd jktLFkku dSnh dkjkokl dkyhu vodk'k fu;e] 1958 ds rgr e`R;qn.M dh /kkjk esa 14 o"kZ e; fopkjk/khu vof/k ds ¼fcuk ifjgkj½ ltk Hkqxrh tkuk vko';d gSA vr% mDr rF;ksa dks /;ku eas j[krs gq, lfefr loZlEefr ls nf.Mr canh ykyk mQZ yky'kadj mQZ thxj iq= xVw mQZ xVwyky dks jktLFkku dSnh dkjkokl dkyhu vodk'k fu;e] 1958 ds rgr LFkkbZ iSjksy ij fjgk ugha djus dh vuq'ka"kk dh gSA jkT; ljdkj jkT; Lrjh; iSjksy lfefr dh vfHk'ka"kk ls lger gSA vr% canh dks LFkkbZ iSjksy ij fjgk ugha djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gSA”

2. Mr. Bhati, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 14.12.2023 passed by this Court in D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.1828/2023 (Heeralal Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.).

3. Apprising the Court about the facts, learned counsel submitted that the applicant was convicted for the offence under Section 376 (D) of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life till remainder of his life.

4. He submitted that if the relevant provision of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (hereinafter refers to the Rules of 1958) more particularly, proviso to Rule 9 is taken into account, the same puts an embargo on consideration of an application for grant of permanent parole before completion of 14 years only in cases where the offence, for which an applicant has been convicted is punishable with death penalty.

5. Learned counsel argued that since the applicant was convicted for the offence under section 376 (D) of the Indian Penal Code for which death penalty has not been provided, his application for grant of permanent parole could not have been rejected by the State Government.

6. Upon considering the minutes of the meeting of the State Government, we had some doubt about the petitioner’s conviction, since reference therein was made to “death penalty”.

7. Learned Government Advocate cum Additional Advocate General placed before us a copy of the judgment and order dated 24.04.2015 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Dungarpur. On going through the same, we are satisfied that the petitioner was not convicted for an offence for which death penalty has been prescribed.

8. Proviso to Rule 9 reads as under:-

“9. Parole period - … … ...

[Provided the cases of prisoners who have been sentenced to imprisonment for life, for an offence for which death penalty is one of the punishments provided by law or who have been sentenced to death but this sentence has been commuted under section 433 of Code of Criminal Procedure into one of life imprisonment shall not be placed before the State Committee for permanent release on parole unless he has served 14 years of imprisonment excluding remission but including the period of detention passed during enquiry, investigation or trial. Such prisoners may be re