Rajasthan High Court Grants 30 Days Parole To 80 Yrs Old TADA Convict, Incarcerated Since Over 27 Yrs

The petitioner had preferred a writ petition (parole) for grant of emergency parole on the ground of his medical condition. It was contended that he was suffering from "DM, CAD (Coronary Artery Disease), BPH (Benign Prosthetic Hyperplasia)".

Justice Birendra Kumar and Justice Pankaj Bhandari, observed,

"Consequently, the writ petition (parole) stands allowed. The Jail Authorities are directed to release the petitioner on parole for àperiod of 30 days, on furnishing of his personal bonds of RS.50,000/- with one surety of like nature to the satisfaction of the Jail Authorities with the stipulation that he shall surrender himself before the Jail Authority on expiry of 30 days from the date of release and shall maintain peace and tranquility during parole period."

It was ordered by the court that the Jail Authority shall proceed in accordance with law, in case he fails to surrender by stipulated date.

The court, while granting parole to the petitioner, took note that the petitioner was earlier granted parole by the Apex Court and later on by the High Court and after expiry of the period of parole, he has surrendered before the Jail authorities. The court also considered that the petitioner is about 80 years old, who remained in custody for a period of more than 27 years and needs proper treatment since his medical condition is deteriorating.

Notably, petitioner was produced before the court in a wheelchair in pursuance of the court's directions to call the petitioner in person. The court observed that the report submitted by the Superintendent Central Jail, Jaipur depicted the medical condition of the petitioner.

The counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the State of Gujarat & Anr. v. Lal Singh @ Manjit Singh & Ors., [(2016) 8 SCC 370] and Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., [(2017) 15 SCC 55] wherein the Apex Court held that High Court has the power to grant parole even when the offence is under the provisions of TADA.

The counsel appearing for the Union of India opposed the writ petition (parole). Placing reliance on Latif Chhmtumiya Shaikh v, State of Gujarat [2001 CriL.R.(Guj,) 65]., it was contended that the accused stands convicted in TADA and the writ petition(parole) does not lie before the High Court.

Adv. Mujahid Ahmed and Adv. Nishant Vyas appeared on behalf of the petitioner. GA-cum-AAG G.S. Rathore and Adv. Anand Sharma appeared on behalf of the state and Union of India respectively. Mr. Ajay Singh, Constable 8656 and Kapil Dev Constable 10416, RPL Jaipur were also present during the course of hearing.

Case Title: Mohammed Amin Through His Son:Zulkafil Amin Ansari v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 121

Click Here To Read/Download Order