HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1959/2024 Vikas Kumar S/o Shri Charan Singh, aged about 42 years, R/o Village Kadarpur, Police Station Sector 65-A, District Gurgaon, (Haryana) (At present confined in Central Jail, Jaipur), through his elder brogher Sheomender Kumar S/o Shri Charan Singh, aged about 53 years, R/o Village Kadarpur, Police Station Sector 65-A, District Gurgaon, (Haryana). ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary Home, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The District Magsitrate, Jaipur (Raj.) 3. Superintendent Central Jail, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anshuman Saxena For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.S. Rathore, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 13/01/2025 1. Inherent jurisdiction of this Court is invoked by the petitioner by way of filing this criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 10.07.2024 passed by the District Parole Advisory Committee, by which the prayer of the petitioner for grant of regular parole has been declined, on the ground that the petitioner remained absconded for a considerable time. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo life sentence of ten years along with co-accused- Jaiveer. Counsel further submits that the (2 of 4) [CRLW-1959/2024] petitioner as well as the co-accused- Jaiveer absconded from the custody and thereafter, the co-accused- Jaiveer was granted interim bail and after completion of the same interim bail, he surrendered before the jail authorities and looking to this fact his regular parole under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (for short the 'Rules of 1958') was allowed thereby he was granted parole of 20 days. 3. Counsel submits that the case of the petitioner is at par with him, therefore, the same indulgence be granted to the petitioner. Counsel further submits that even as per Rule 18 of the Rules of 1958 a prisoner can be released on parole for a period of seven days, in case, he breaches any of the conditions of the sanctioned parole or he overstays beyond the period of parole. Counsel submits that under the similar circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rakesh vs. State while deciding D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 696/2021 granted seven days parole to the co-accused- Jaiveer who also remained absconded for a considerable time. Counsel submits that hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State- respondent opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner has misused the liberty and remained absconded for a considerable time, hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of parole. Counsel further submits that there are chances that in case, the petitioner is released on parole, he may abscond again, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted. (3 of 4) [CRLW-1959/2024] 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 6. This fact is not in dispute that the petitioner along with co- accused- Jaiveer were convicted in the same criminal case and both of them absconded for a considerable time. This fact is also not in dispute that indulgence of interim bail was granted to the co-accused- Jaiveer and after availing the benefit of the same he surrendered before the authorities and thereafter, he was granted indulgence of 20 days parole by this Court, while deciding Criminal Writ Petition No. 1931/2024 vide order dated 28.11.2024. There is slight difference between the case of the petitioner and that of the co-accused Jaiveer. The co-accused Jaiveer was granted indulgence of interim bail for some time and after availing the benefit of the same, he surrendered before the jail authorities, therefore, believing upon his such conduct for release on parole, regular parole of 20 days was granted to him but in the instant case after arrest of the petitioner, till date, the petitioner has not been released. 7. Taking into account the provisions mentioned in Rule 18(2) of the Rules of 1958 and looking to the fact that the petitioner overstayed after the sanction parole for a considerable time. This Court deems it just and proper to grant him seven days parole on usual terms and conditions. It is made clear that the journey period of the petitioner for releasing and return shall be excluded from the said period. 8. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is allowed and the Superintendent Central Jail is directed to release the petitioner for (4 of 4) [CRLW-1959/2024] seven days parole, as per the usual terms and conditions to secure his presence/return. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J DIVYA SAINI /203