KAILASH THAKAN S/O SH. AMER CHAND v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
CRLW/124/2025 · 2025-01-24
Bhuwan Goyal, Narendra Singh Dhaddha
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 4631 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 4631 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:3545-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Writ Petition (Parole) No. 124/2025 Kailash Thakan S/o Sh. Amer Chand, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Village Thakano Ki Dhani, Police Station Roopangarh, Distrct Ajmer (Raj.) (At Present Confined In Open Air Camp Sanganer, Jaipur) Through His Son- Ashok Choudhary S/o Sh. Kailash Thakan, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village Thakano Ki Dhani, Police Station Roopangarh, Distrct Ajmer (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Inspector General, Prison, Jaipur.
2. The State Parole Committee, Through Joint Secretary Department Of Home, Jaipur.
3. The Superintendent Of Central Jail, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.R. Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Addl. G.A. with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Asst. G.A.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL
Order 24/01/2025
1. Issue notice.
2. Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notices on behalf of the State.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has preferred this writ petition (parole) to release the petitioner on permanent parole under Rule 9 of Rules, 1958 or to decide the application of the petitioner which is pending before the concerned authorities (respondents).
[2025:RJ-JP:3545-DB] (2 of 2) [CRLW-124/2025]
4. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the application filed by the petitioner before the Parole Advisory Committee (for short “the Committee”) seeking permanent parole is pending since 23.11.2024. He further submits that the petitioner is entitled for permanent parole under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958.
5. A limited prayer is made before this Court that the concerned authorities be directed to decide the application at the earliest as per the Rules.
6. Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the present writ petition (parole).
7. We have considered the contentions.
8. Since a limited prayer is made before the Court, we deem it proper to dispose of the present Criminal Writ Petition (Parole) with a direction to the concerned authorities to take decision on the application submitted by the petitioner for grant of permanent parole within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
9. Accordingly, this criminal writ petition (parole) is disposed of.
(BHUWAN GOYAL),J (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Sudeepak/Tahir/18