Rajasthan High Court Allows Premature Release Of Man Alleged To Be 'Threat To Family' After Conviction For Mother's Murder

The Rajasthan High Court allowed premature release of a man convicted for his mother's murder opining that adverse reports submitted by the Police Department and Social Welfare Department were merely based on presumption that since he had murdered his mother his release would threaten his other family members.

The division bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Anuroop Singhi highlighted that no adverse report was furnished by the jail authorities. The petitioner was also granted jail remission by which it could be presumed that his conduct was “good”.

The Court also took into account that the State had allowed his release on permanent parole which he could not avail due to failure to furnish sureties and personal bond.

"No adverse report has been furnished by the jail authorities and he has been granted the jail remission of 2 years and 6 months, therefore, the conduct of the petitioner is presumed to be 'good'. In the considered opinion of this Court, there is no foundation for the adverse reports submitted by the Police Department and Social Welfare Department. We find that rejection of the petitioner's case is merely on the basis of presumption that since he had murdered his mother, therefore, his release will cause disturbance in the society and there will be a threat to the other family members, therefore, the same cannot be sustained"

The Court was hearing a letter petition filed by the petitioner, as received from the Central Jail, Udaipur, seeking premature release.

It was submitted that the petitioner had already undergone a period of more than 14 years in jail, and had also received jail remission for 2 years, 9 months and 24 days, and State remission of 2 years. Hence, under the Rules of Rajasthan Prison (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 2006, he was eligible for premature release. However, his application was rejected by the Advisory Committee.

After hearing the contentions, the Court perused Rules 8(2)(i), 11 and 12 of the 2006 Rules, opining that these three, when read together, explicitly reflected that a prisoner, who was convicted and sentenced for life, and had completed actual sentence of 14 years, plus had remission of 2 years, 6 months, was entitled for being considered for premature release.

While reviewing the report of the Advisory Committee, the Court held that the reason for rejection was not very convincing and plausible, considering that both his brothers were living in different states, and the sisters were also at their matrimonial homes.

Considering the entirety of the situation, the Court opined that there was no foundation of the adverse reports submitted, but a mere presumption based on him murdering his mother. Hence, the same could not be sustained.

The petition was allowed and the petitioner was directed to be released.

Title: Rajmal v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 318

Click Here To Read/Download Order