The rejection of a parole application should be based on proper consideration, reasoning, and the convict's conduct while on parole.

JUDGMENT

1. The convict petitioner has approached this Court through this writ petition for assailing the minutes/order dated 27.07.2022, issued by the District Parole Advisory Committee, Jaipur whereby, his application for regular parole of forty days has been rejected.

2. A perusal of the rejection order would reveal that the reasons assigned therein for denial of regular parole of forty days to the convict petitioner are totally perfunctory and the order suffering from total non-application of mind. The Committee observed that the parole application was being rejected because there was disagreement of the District Magistrate, Dungarpur and the Superintendent of Police, Dungarpur.

3. We have perused these two reports which have been annexed by the respondents with the reply. The letter dated 15.07.2022 issued by the Office of District Magistrate, Dungarpur, reveals that the same is based totally on the communication/report dated 07.07.2022 issued from the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Dungarpur and no independent application of mind was made by the District Magistrate, Dungarpur.

4. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Dungarpur dated 07.07.2022 indicates that it was issued in a proforma and referring to a circular dated 08.06.2012 issued by the Home Department, Government of Rajasthan and it has been observed that the convict is suffering Life Imprisonment for the charge of murder and if he is released on a regular parole, it would entail adverse effect on the society as well as law and order.

5. We are of the firm view that this report of the Superintendent of Police, Dungarpur is totally mechanical and laconic. Suffice it to say that at point No. 8 of the report, it is mentioned that the convict has been released on four paroles previously. There is no reflection in the letter of the Superintendent of Police, Dungarpur that while availing earlier parole facilities, any adverse report was received regarding the conduct of the petitioner.

6. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Indra Kanwar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in D.B. Criminal Writs No. 17/2019 considered the aspect of grant of subsequent paroles and held that once, a convict avails regular parole facility, while considering the subsequent parole application, prime importance shall be given to the conduct of the convict while being on parole.

7. Keeping in view the ratio of the above judgment, Home Department, Government of Rajasthan has issued an advisory note dated 20.02.2019. The contents of this letter have material bearing on the controversy and are thus, being reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference:-

^^jkT; ds leLr dkjkx`gksa esa fu:}fn;ksa dks nh jktLFkku ftu fjyht vkWu iSjksy fu;e] 1958 ds vuqlkj iSjksy Ánku fd;k tkrk gSA Áns'k dh fu:} cafn;ksa ds iSjksy ÁkFkZuk i=ksa ds fuLrkj.k esa rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa dh iw.kZ foospu ds cxSj gh iSjksy ÁkFkZuk&i= ds fuLrkj.k esa viuk;s tk jgs ;kaf=d rjhds dks ukjktxh tkfgj dh gSA

iwoZ esa Hkh bl foHkkx ds i=kad iŒ 7¼9½ x`g&12@dkjk@2005 ikVZ t;iqj] fnukad 16-06-2016 ds }kjk ijke'kZ tkjh dh xbZ gS] ftldh Áfr lkFk layXu gSA

vr% iqu% ;g funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd cafn;ksa ds f}rh; ,oa vkxs ds fu;fer@LFkkbZ iSjksy Ádj.kksa esa iqfyl v/kh{kd ls iqu% fjiksVZ ugha yh tk;sA ,sls Ádj.kksa esa dsoy ftyk ifjok{kk vf/kdkjh ,oa lacaf/kr tsy v/kh{kd dh gh fjiksVZ lh tk;s rFkk canh ds iwoZ iSjksy ij jgs larks"ktud vkpj.k] canh }kjk iSjksy vof/k esa 'krksZ dh iw.kZr% ikyuk] canh dk fu;r frfFk@le; ij okil dkjkx`g esa nkf[ky gksuk rFkk tsy vof/k esa vkpj.k ij lexzrk esa fopkj djrs gq, iSjksy Ádj.kksa ij fnokj fd;k tk;sA

vioknLo:i ekeysa esa ;fn iSjksy nsuk mfpr ugha le>k tk;sa rks ,slh fLFkfr esa ;g vko';d gksxk fd iSjksy vLohd`r djus ds dkj.kksa dks fyfic} djrs gq, Lor% Li"V vkns'k (Self Speaking Order) ikfjr djrs gq, iSjksy vLohd`r dh tk;sA mijksDrkuqlkj dk;Zokgh@ikyuk lqfuf'pr djk;s tkus dk Je djsaA**

8. In this ad