AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The instant writ petition has been filed by Smt. Kanta Devi wife of the convict prisoner Narendra Kumar lodged at Central Jail, Bikaner seeking pre-mature release on parole of the prisoner under the Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 2006).
The application filed by the convict for release on permanent parole was turned down by the Advisory Board in its meeting dated 22.03.2018. The Advisory Board forwarded its recommendation to the State Government which confirmed the same by order dated 18.05.2018 which is assailed by the petitioner in this writ petition. It is mentioned in the impugned order that the prisoner is a habitual criminal having 35 cases registered against him till date. On the previous date of hearing, this Court directed the learned Government Advocate to place on record the list of cases registered against the convict till date. As per the list forwarded by the SHO, Police Station Agroha, District Hisar (from where the convict hails), it is manifest that no less than 35 cases have been registered against the convict till date. Of these 35, he has been convicted in no less than 21 cases. The petitioner's counsel was given opportunity to file an additional affidavit to counter this list but Shri Bhati stated that he does not propose to file any counter affidavit. The case in which the appellant is presently undergoing imprisonment was registered against him at the Police Station Nohar on 01.08.2001 and he stands convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life by judgment dated 31.05.2005. A perusal of the order dated 28.10.2013 passed by a Coordinate Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13168/2013 indicates that while availing emergent parole in the year 2011, the convict absconded.
The prayer of the convict for premature release on parole has been turned down with reference to Rule 9(3) of the Rules of 2006 which reads as under:
"9. Prisoners not eligible for consideration by the Advisory Board .-
Notwithstanding anything in these Rules, the Advisory Board shall not consider the cases of following types of prisoners: - ...
(3)Prisoners who are habitual criminals, meaning thereby having three or more convictions, all of which are of such a nature as to justify their classification as habitual criminals."
Manifestly, the convict prisoner having been convicted in no less than 21 cases till date, is definitely and undoubtedly covered within the definition of a habitual criminal and, therefore, we are of the firm opinion that no ground is made out so as to interfere in the subjective satisfaction recorded by the Advisory Board and the State Government in the impugned orders whereby, the parole application of the convict for premature release on parole was turned down in reference to Rule 9(3) of the Rules of 2006.
Thus, the instant writ petition is dismissed as being devoid of merit.