<p> Jodhpur: In a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court on Thursday ordered that a convict under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 cannot serve parole in the same city or village where the victim resides.</p>.<p>In its decision, a division bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni stated that in cases where the convict and the victim reside in the same city or village, the accused has to serve the parole elsewhere.</p>.<p>The court, in its decision, stated that the convict and victim must not come face-to-face as this will remind the victim of the ordeal she wanted to forget.</p>.Goyal's cancer not life-threatening: Court rejects Jet Airways founder's interim bail plea.<p>Sahi Ram, who has been sentenced to jail term for raping a three-year-old girl and is serving sentence in Ajmer central jail, had moved the high court challenging the rejection of his first parole application by the District Level Parole Committee, Nagaur.</p>.<p>His counsel argued that the committee had committed an error of law in rejecting the petitioner's application for first parole and submitted that the ground taken for rejection was not relevant.</p>.<p>Additional Advocate General (AAG) Anil Joshi, while objecting to the prayer, cited seriousness of the crime. He argued in the court that granting parole would bring the accused face-to-face with the victim, whose residence is just adjacent to the convict-petitioner's house.</p>.<p>"It will have adverse social and psychological effects on the victim, as the accused is the neighbour of the victim," he argued.</p>.<p>The court ordered the release of Sahi Ram on his first parole for 20 days on a private bond of Rs 50,000 and two sureties of Rs 5,000 each and imposed a condition that he will not go to the victim's village, even if it means he has a house or family there.</p>.<p>The convict's counsel gave an assurance to the court that he will not go to the victim's village.</p>.<p>The high court ruled that the convict will have to serve parole outside the victim's village.</p>
<p> Jodhpur: In a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court on Thursday ordered that a convict under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 cannot serve parole in the same city or village where the victim resides.</p>.<p>In its decision, a division bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni stated that in cases where the convict and the victim reside in the same city or village, the accused has to serve the parole elsewhere.</p>.<p>The court, in its decision, stated that the convict and victim must not come face-to-face as this will remind the victim of the ordeal she wanted to forget.</p>.Goyal's cancer not life-threatening: Court rejects Jet Airways founder's interim bail plea.<p>Sahi Ram, who has been sentenced to jail term for raping a three-year-old girl and is serving sentence in Ajmer central jail, had moved the high court challenging the rejection of his first parole application by the District Level Parole Committee, Nagaur.</p>.<p>His counsel argued that the committee had committed an error of law in rejecting the petitioner's application for first parole and submitted that the ground taken for rejection was not relevant.</p>.<p>Additional Advocate General (AAG) Anil Joshi, while objecting to the prayer, cited seriousness of the crime. He argued in the court that granting parole would bring the accused face-to-face with the victim, whose residence is just adjacent to the convict-petitioner's house.</p>.<p>"It will have adverse social and psychological effects on the victim, as the accused is the neighbour of the victim," he argued.</p>.<p>The court ordered the release of Sahi Ram on his first parole for 20 days on a private bond of Rs 50,000 and two sureties of Rs 5,000 each and imposed a condition that he will not go to the victim's village, even if it means he has a house or family there.</p>.<p>The convict's counsel gave an assurance to the court that he will not go to the victim's village.</p>.<p>The high court ruled that the convict will have to serve parole outside the victim's village.</p>