BALRAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A letter has been received from Balraj Singh, a convicted prisoner of Central Jail, Sri Ganganagar, which has been treated as a letter petition by this Court. Subsequently, Mr. Kalu Ram has filed his power on behalf of the petitioner.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that initially he was convicted for offences under Sections 302/34, 341, 342 IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Camp Suratgarh, vide judgment dated 20.9.2003. Aggrieved by the said judgment, he had challenged the same before this Court. This Court, partly allowed the appeal filed by him, modified the conviction from one under Section 302 IPC, to one under Section 304 Part-I IPC, and reduced the sentence from life imprisonment to ten years. As on 8.5.2011, the petitioner had completed six years, five months, and two days. Since he was eligible for being released prematurely under the Rajasthan Prisoners (Shortening of Sentence) Rules, 1958. He had filed a writ petition before this Court, registered as S.B. Cr. Writ Petition No. 8470/2010. The said writ petition was decided vide judgment dated 21.12.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner's case was considered by the Advisory Board on 23.2.2011. However, as the District Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar, the Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar, and the Superintendent of Central Jail had given adverse reports against the petitioner, his case for premature release was rejected by the Advisory Board. The recommendation of the Advisory Board was subsequently accepted by the State Government. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 4.3.2011 whereby his case has been rejected for premature release.

(3.) Mr. Kalu Ram Bhati, has contended that the petitioner's case has been rejected ostensibly on the grounds that his conduct within the jail was unsatisfactory, and while on bail he had allegedly committed an offence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, and the S.P. Sri Gangangagar had given a report against the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, the recent most report received from the Central Jail shows that the conduct of the petitioner in the jail is satisfactory. Therefore, one of the three grounds taken for rejecting the petitioner's case no longer exists. Secondly, that while the petitioner was granted the benefit of the second parole of thirty days, he had not created any law and order problem during his furlough. Hence, he should be released prematurely.