Sanwar Lal vs State And Ors

Sangeet Lodha, J

This petition is filed by the petitioner, a life convict, seeking directions to the respondents to release him on permanent parole.

The petitioner was convicted for offences under Sections 376(2)(g), 366A and 363 of IPC and was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment vide

judgment dated 20.12.14 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Bikaner in Sessions Case No.11/13. The petitioner has

already served the sentence of 9 years, 7 months and 17 days including remission of 1 year, 3 months and 4 days as on 1.8.2020. During the period of

incarceration, the petitioner has availed first, second and third parole for 20, 30 and 40 days respectively. Being eligible, the petitioner applied for

permanent parole under Rule 9 of Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (for short ""the Rules of 1958""). The application has been

rejected by the State Committee vide decision dated 18.2.20 taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has been convicted for commission of

heinous crime of gang rape.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the conviction of the prisoner for an offence of heinous nature by itself cannot be a

valid ground for denial of permanent parole under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958. Drawing the attention of the Court to Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958,

learned counsel submitted that if during the period of release on regular parole, the prisoner has behaved well and is not likely to relapse into crime, the

State Committee for Permanent Release on Parole ('the State Committee') is under an obligation to recommend his case to the State Government for

permanent release on parole. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the this Court in Smt. Suman Devi vs. State &

Anr.: D.B.Criminal Writ Petition No.430/18, decided on 19.2.19.

On the other hand, Mr. B.R.Bishnoi, learned Assistant Government Counsel submitted that the involvement of the convict in commission of a

heinous crime can always be taken into consideration while deciding the application seeking permanent parole. Learned counsel submitted that the

petitioner is convicted for an offence of committing gang rape and therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the State Committee in not recommending

his case for release on permanent parole cannot be faulted with.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

It is noticed that in the instant case, the State Committee has rejected the case of the petitioner for permanent release on parole solely on the

ground that he has been convicted for committing heinous crime of gang rape. As laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asfaq vs. State of

Rajasthan: AIR 2018 SC (Criminal) 37 and a Bench of this Court in Sharwan Manjhi vs. State & Anr.: D.B.Criminal Writ Petition No.94/20, decided

on 25.8.20, the conviction for a serious or heinous crime by itself cannot operate as absolute bar for denying parole to the prisoner who has otherwise

acquired eligibility for release on parole.

In Rajendra @ Raju vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. :D.B.Criminal Writ No.256/20, decided today, after due consideration of the ratio of the decision

of the Supreme Court in Asfaq's case (supra) and the ambit and scope of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958, this Court held:

A bare perusal of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958 reveals that the parameters laid down for release on regular parole for the specified period and for

permanent release on parole are not the same. It is noticed that a convict may be released on first parole for a period of 20 days if he has completed

with remission, if any, one fourth of his sentence and subject to good conduct in the jail. He becomes entitle for release for 30 days on second parole

and 40 days on third parole if his behaviour has been good during the first and second parole respectively. But then, for permanent release of the

prisoner on parole, the following conditions must be satisfied:

(i) Besides the first and second parole even during the third parole, the prisoner has behaved well;

(ii) His character has been exceedingly well ; and

(iii) His conduct has been such that he is not likely to relapse into crime.

As laid down by a Bench of this Court in Suraj Giri Vs. State of Rajasthan: (2010) 4 RLW 3507, the prisoners who have served the requisite

period of sentence and are eligible for consideration for release on permanent parole under the Rules of 1958 cannot be denied consideration on the

ground that he has not availed first, second and third parole in terms of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958. But the fact remains that if the prisoner had

availed the regular parole for the specified period then for consideration of his case, it is absolutely necessary that during the release on regular parole,

his behaviour has been good.

It goes without saying that while considering the case of the prisoner for permanent release on parole, the State Committee is under an obligation

to take into consideration all the parameters/conditions laid down under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958 as aforesaid and record its conclusion thereon

while granting or denying the permanent parole to the prisoner. The State Parole Advisory Committee cannot grant or reject an application seeking

permanent parole by merely recording its ipse dixit. Of course, in those cases where the person has been convicted for a serious offence as laid down

by the Supreme Court in Asfaq's case (supra), the competent authority can have stricter standards in mind while judging his case on the parameters of

the good conduct habitual offender or while judging whether he could be considered highly dangerous or prejudicial to the public peace and tranquility

etc.

Adverting to the facts of the present case, it is noticed that the application of the petitioner seeking permanent release on parole has been rejected

by the State Committee solely on the grounds; firstly, that if the prisoner is released on permanent parole, there is possibility of quarrel in his family and

secondly, that he has been convicted for committing rape on a minor girl of four years. Suffice it to say that the case of the prisoner for release on

permanent parole has not been considered by the State Committee in conformity with the mandate of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958 keeping in view the

parameters/conditions laid down as aforesaid.

In view of the discussion above, the order impugned passed by the State Committee deserves to be set aside and the matter deserves to be

remanded to the State Committee for consideration afresh, keeping in view, the provisions of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958 and the law laid down by the

Supreme Court and this Court as aforesaid.

We are of the considered opinion that the controversy raised in the present petition stands covered by the decision of this Court in Rajendra @

Raju's case (supra).

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The decision of the State Committee dated 18.2.20 in rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking

permanent release on parole is set aside. The matter is remanded to the State Committee for consideration afresh in accordance with the provisions of

Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958 and the law laid down by this Court in Rajendra @ Raju's case (supra). The State Committee shall decide the application

of the petitioner afresh expeditiously, in any case, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.