JUDGMENT :

SANGEET LODHA, J.

1. This petition is filed by the petitioner, a life convict, seeking directions to the respondents to release him on permanent parole.

2. The petitioner was convicted for offences under Sections 363, 366A, 376(2)(f) of IPC and was sentenced to life imprisonment with fine Rs. 1,750/- and in default in payment of fine to undergo four years six months additional imprisonment, vide judgment dated 10.5.06 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) in Sessions Case No. 11/06. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the conviction and sentence as aforesaid stands dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 4.7.16 passed in Criminal Appeal 486/06. The petitioner has already served the sentence of 17 years, 7 months and 4 days including remission of 3 years, 2 months and 29 days as on 30.6.2020. During the period of incarceration, the petitioner has availed first and second parole for 20 days and 30 days respectively and emergent parole for 7 days. Being eligible, the petitioner applied for permanent parole under Rule 9 of Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (for short “the Rules of 1958”). The application has been rejected by the State Committee vide decision dated 27.5.20 taking into consideration the opinion of District Probation and Welfare Officer that if convict is released on permanent parole, there is possibility of quarrel in his family. That apart, the Committee observed that the petitioner has been convicted for heinous crime of committing rape on minor girl of four years of age.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the conviction of the prisoner for an offence of heinous nature by itself cannot be a valid ground for denial of permanent parole under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958. Drawing the attention of the Court to Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958, learned counsel submitted that if during the period of release on regular parole, the prisoner has behaved well and is not likely to relapse into crime, the State Committee for Permanent Release on Parole (‘the State Committee’) is under an obligation to recommend his case to the State Government for permanent release on parole. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan : AIR 2018 SC (Cri) 37 and a Bench decision of this Court in Sharawan Manjhi v. State : D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 94/20, decided on 25.8.20.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Abhishek Purohit, learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the involvement of the convict in commission of a heinous crime can always be taken into consideration while deciding the application seeking permanent parole. Learned counsel submitted that the nature of the crime committed by the prisoner is relevant to determine his character and the possibility of his relapsing into crime. Learned counsel further submitted that in the instant case, the petitioner is convicted for an offence of committing rape on minor girl of four years of age and therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the State Committee in not recommending his case for release on permanent parole cannot be faulted with.

5. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

6. In Asfaq's case (supra), the Supreme Court while dealing with the issue with regard to denial of parole to the prisoners convicted in a case of serious and heinous crime observed:

“7) We may state at the outset that the reason because of which the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein is not an apposite one and does not meet the test of law. The petition is dismissed only on the ground that the appellant is convicted in a case of serious and heinous crime and, therefore, parole cannot be claimed as a matter of right. As per the discussion that would follow hereinafter, the conviction in a serious and heinous crime cannot be the reason for denying the parole per se. Another observation m