Non-availing of three regular paroles is not a sound ground for refusal of permanent parole, especially when the petitioner has served a substantive part of the sentence and has a good conduct record.

JUDGMENT

1. This parole petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer that the order dated 11.01.2021 issued pursuant to the meeting of Permanent Parole Committee dated 04.12.2020 whereby the petitioner has been denied permanent parole on the ground of non availing of three regular paroles, be quashed.

2. It has been submitted in the petition that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bandikui, Dsitrict Dausa vide its judgment dated 18.12.2015 convicted the petitioner for the offence under Sections 302/34 & 342 of IPC and sentenced to maximum life imprisonment. The petitioner filed DB Criminal Appeal No.174/2016 which was partly allowed by this Court and the sentence was reduced to 10 years.

3. It has further been submitted that the petitioner had served 8 years 6 months and 26 days of imprisonment upto 25.01.2021 out of the total sentence of 10 years. He was released on two paroles of 20 and 30 days respectively by the Parole Committee. In this way, he has served a substantive part of his sentence. He never misused the liberty of parole and on completion of the parole period, he surrendered before the concerned authority on due date. During incarceration, the conduct of the petitioner has remained absolutely good and he is continuously getting remission in jail on the basis of his good conduct and behavior. Thus, he is entitled to be released on permanent parole.

4. In the reply, it is submitted that the case of the petitioner was placed before State Level Parole Advisory Committee but the same has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not availed three regular paroles, although there is no specific period of sentence for eligibility of permanent parole. It has further been submitted that after availing three regular paroles, his case will be considered for permanent parole.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record.

6. Issue raised, in the instant case, is no longer res-integra.

7. In the case of Suresh & Others Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2011 (3) WLC 643, Division Bench of this Court had held that on the technical ground that the petitioner has not availed three permanent paroles is not a good ground to deny the parole until some adverse material is brought on record that if the petitioner is released on parole, the same will cause disturbance in the society.

8. In the case of Suraj Giri Vs. State of Rajasthan & others, reported in 2011 Criminal Law Journal-1534, it has been observed by the Court that non-availing of three or any of paroles by the prisoner itself is not a sound ground for refusal of permanent parole.

9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has already been granted benefit of two regular paroles of 20 and 30 days respectively and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him and his conduct and behaviour during the period of previous regular parole was good.

10. Needless to say that in case the petitioner engages himself in any untoward incident during permanent parole, same can be withdrawn and the petitioner can be called upon to serve his remaining sentence.

11. Having regard to the submissions made by the parties and in view of the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court, cited herein above, I deem it just and proper to allow the present petition for parole and set aside the impugned order dated 11.01.2021 qua petitioner, whereby permanent parole was refused to him.

12. Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated 11.01.2021 qua petitioner stands quashed and set aside and the concerned District Authority is directed to release the convict-petitioner on permanent parole, subject to furnishing his personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- before the concerned District Magistrate. The petitioner is also directed to furnish two sureties of Rs. 50,000/-each within two weeks to the satisfaction of the concerned District Magistrate with the stipulation that in case during