Chhaju Ram vs State of Raj. and Others

Convict-petitioner Chhaju Ram S/o Shri Hanuman Prasad has preferred this parole writ petition through his son-in-law Mahipal for grant of first parole of 20 days. His application for parole was rejected vide order dated 26th April, 2010 passed by District Magistrate, Jhunjhunu.

A notice to show cause was given and in response thereto, the respondents have filed their reply to writ petition, wherein it is contended that convict was granted emergent parole earlier and during his parole period, he abused the victim party, therefore, the concerned Superintendent of Police has not recommended his case for grant of parole.

We have considered the submissions made in the writ petition and reply and documents annexed therewith.

So far as the conduct of petitioner during jail custody is concerned, the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur has mentioned in nominal roll (Annex.R-1) of the petitioner that his conduct was satisfactory. So far as other allegations regarding abuse by petitioner to victim party, during earlier emergent parole is concerned, it is borne out that petitioner was earlier granted emergent parole during the period from 13.1.2007 to 27.1.2007. Thereafter, petitioner was granted first parole of 20 days by District Parole Advisory Committee vide order dated 25th May, 2009 (Annex.3), but petitioner could not furnish the required bonds, therefore, he could not be released. Since the conduct of petitioner during the emergent parole was considered by the District Parole Advisory Committee itself while passing the order dated 25th May, 2009 then it was not proper on part of the District Parole Advisory Committee to reject the application of the petitioner for grant of first parole on the said ground while passing the impugned order dated 26th April, 2010.

Matter was listed on 1st September, 2010. On request of respondents, time was granted to call for the antecedents of the petitioner, but nothing has been furnished by the respondents in this behalf. It is also relevant to mention that no documentary evidence has been placed on record in support of adverse report given by the Superintendent of Police, Jhunjhunu. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that the District Parole Advisory committee has committed illegality in rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of first parole.

Consequently, the parole writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 26th April, 2010 qua petitioner is set aside and it is directed that convict-petitioner Chhaju Ram S/o Hanuman Prasad be released on first parole of 20 days on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-(Rs. Fifty Thousand) with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/-(Rs. Twenty Five Thousand) each to the satisfaction of the concerned Jail Superintendent. It will be open for the concerned Jail Superintendent to impose any other reasonable condition to secure the presence of the petitioner.

Copy of this order be sent for information to the convict-petitioner and for compliance to the concerned Jail Superintendent.