The nature of parole, whether regular or emergent, is immaterial in the context of abscondance, and the consequences under Rule 18 of the Rules of 1958 apply regardless of the type of parole.

JUDGMENT

1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the convict petitioner Subhash Khichad seeking a direction for release on first parole of 20 days. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment vide judgment dated 26.08.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.1/2014. It is averred that the petitioner's application for release on first parole of 20 days has not been decided by the competent authority.

2. Notice of the writ petition was issued to the respondents and a reply has been filed on their behalf. It has been categorically mentioned in the reply that the convict was released on 15 days' parole on 08.03.2017 in furtherance of the order dated 06.03.2017 passed by the District Magistrate, Hanumangarh, but he did not report back at the prison on the scheduled date and went absconding, upon which a criminal case was registered against him. On 13.05.2017, information was received that the convict was arrested and lodged at the Central Jail Bhatinda in another case. Thus, his custody was sought from the said jail and he was brought back and lodged at the Central Jail, Bikaner to undergo his life sentence. In these circumstances, the respondents have pleaded that the convict has lost the right to be considered for grant of regular parole under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1958') and that he can now only seek release on parole under Rule 18 of the Rules of 1958.

3. Learned counsel Mr. Kaluram Bhati vehemently and fervently submits that the consequence of denial of parole upon abscondance flows only if the convict has breached the conditions of "regular parole" of 20, 30 or 40 days, as the case may be, granted under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958, whereas the convict-petitioner herein had been released on emergent parole of 15 days and thus, this restriction would not apply to the present circumstances and the petitioner herein is entitled to be released on regular parole of 20 days.

4. Per contra, Mr. Abhishek Purohit, associate to Mr. Farzand AN, G.A.-cum-A.A.G., has vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by Mr. Bhati. He points out that the consequence of Rule 18 of the Rules of 1958 that the convict will not be entitled for release on regular parole flows from the fact that after being released on parole, whatever its nature be, the convict has misused the liberty so granted to him and absconds. The factum of abscondance plays prime role for denial of regular parole to the convict and the nature of parole, on which the convict was released, whether regular or emergent, is immaterial. He, therefore, seeks dismissal of the writ petition.

5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties and have considered the relevant statutes.

6. The right of a convict to be considered for release on regular parole of 20, 30 and 40 days and emergent parole flows from Rules 9 and 9-A of the Rules of 1958. For ready reference, these Rules are reproduced herein below: -

"9. Parole period.- A prisoner, who has completed with remission, if any (one-fourth) of his sentence and subject to good conduct in the Jail, may be released on 1st parole for 20 days including days of journey to home and back, and for 30 days on 2nd parole provided his behaviour has been good during the 1st parole and for 40 days on third parole provided his behaviour has been good during the second parole. If during the third parole also the prisoner has behaved well and his character has been exceedingly well and if the prisoner's conduct has been such that he is not likely to relapse into crime, his case may be recommended to the Government through the State Committee for permanent release on parole on such conditions as deemed fit by the Superintendent Jail and the District Magistrate concerned; the chief condition among them being that if the