A convict who has completed more than one-fourth of their sentence with remission and has maintained good conduct in jail is entitled to permanent parole, even if they have not availed any parole earlier.

JAINENDRA KUMAR RANKA, J.

Instant petition has been filed by the convict-petitioner (Ganga Devi) through her son (Suresh Lal) seeking permanent parole under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (for short, 'the Rules of 1958' ).

2. The convict-petitioner is presently confined in Central Women Jail, Jaipur and serving sentence of life imprisonment upon being convicted u/Ss. 302/34, 201, IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment by the court of Additional District Judge, Nimbhaheda vide judgment and order dt. 16/05/2003 passed in Sessions Case No.65/1999.

3. Admittedly, the convict-petitioner is in judicial custody since 6/9/1999 and has remained in judicial custody for more than 14 ½ years of her sentence. The convict-petitioner is presently aged about 79 years and is an old aged lady.

4. Counsel for the convict-petitioner submitted that the convict petitioner has already served more than 14½ years of imprisonment and being an old aged lady, deserves to be granted indulgence of permanent parole. He contended that under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958, an accused can be granted benefit of permanent parole on certain grounds/ conditions and the convict-certain grounds/conditions and the convict-petitioner, being a lady and particularly aged about 79 years, needs indulgence of this Court for granting her benefit of permanent parole. Counsel contended that the convict-petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of permanent parole only on the ground that during the last more than 14 ½ years she has not availed of any parole. Counsel further contended that the conduct of the convict-petitioner in jail has been satisfactory & good and there is no reason in not granting permanent parole to the convict-petitioner. He contended that the District Magistrate, Chhitorgarh has given adverse report by simply observing that there is dispute between the parties relating to the land matter and it may affect the peaceful atmosphere. Counsel submitted that this cannot be a reason at all for not granting benefit of permanent parole to the convict-petitioner, more particularly, when the convict-petitioner now is an infirm lady aged about 79 years and is not even in a position to maintain herself properly. He further contended that the Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh has also made the same observations as have been made by the District Magistrate, Chittorgarh, however, the Social Welfare Department, Chittorgarh in its report dt. 17/8/2013 (Anx. R/5) has recommended for grant of permanent parole to the convict-petitioner. Counsel further contended that in the light of the above facts and circumstances, the convict petitioner deserves benefit of permanent parole so that she may come in the main stream and that she must be given indulgence of permanent parole so that she can be taken care of by her family members now at least for some time as she may not be in a position to live long life because of her old age and being infirm.

5. Counsel for the respondents objected to grant of permanent parole and contended that from the reports of the concerned District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, it is seen that some dispute regarding land is going on between the convict petitioner with her family members on account of which it may aggravate and there is possibility of further quarrel between the convict-petitioner and her family members and it may affect peaceful atmosphere. Counsel for the respondents, however, admitted that the Social Welfare Department has recommended for grant of permanent parole to the convict petitioner but at the same time submitted that the reports of the concerned District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police are more important in such matters rather than the report of the Social Welfare Department. It was, however, admitted that the conduct of the convict-petitioner in Jail as per nominal role has been satisfactory.

6. We have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and g