The court emphasized that the mere fact of serving a sentence for a heinous crime cannot be the sole reason to deny parole, and specific reasons must be provided to curtail or deny parole.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Mehta, J. - By way of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 27.07.2021, whereby petitioner's application for second parole of 30 days has been rejected by the District Parole Advisory Committee, Barmer.

2. The petitioner is serving the sentence for his conviction under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and read with Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act, 2012.

3. The petitioner moved an application on 04.06.2021 and prayed that he be given second parole of 30 days in accordance with the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1958").

4. In furtherance of the petitioner's application, the report of concerned Superintendent of Police, Barmer was sought, whereafter, petitioner's application was rejected by the Parole Advisory Committee in its meeting dated 27.07.2021 on the basis of report furnished by the Superintendent of Police, Barmer dated 30.06.2021.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Parole Advisory Committee has rejected petitioner's application solely on the basis of the illegal report sent by the Superintendent of Police, Barmer.

6. Inviting Court's attention towards the copy of the report dated 30.06.2021, which has been placed on record by the respondent - State, learned counsel pointed out that the Superintendent of Police has simply stated that the petitioner having committed a serious offence is serving life imprisonment and has so far served only 6 years and 6 months' sentence and if he is released on parole, it would have adverse impact on the society, victim and her family.

7. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, such report filed by the Superintendent of Police is a general report and does not indicate anything adverse against the petitioner, such as he would act vindictively against the family of the victim.

8. It was also argued that the embargo on release of a prisoner on parole, who is serving the sentence pursuant to conviction of heinous crime such as rape, etc, has been introduced with the amended Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 2021").

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was granted first parole of 20 days and after completion of the period, he had surrendered before the Jail Superintendent.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner's application for the second parole was filed on 04.06.2021, on which date, the Rules of 2021 had not come into force, hence, the Parole Advisory Committee was not justified in rejecting petitioner's application for second parole.

11. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner is not entitled for parole as he has been convicted for heinous offence of commission of sexual assault on a minor girl.

12. It was also argued that if the petitioner is released, he would be meeting or facing the prosecutrix, which shall have adverse impact on her mental state.

13. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considering the order dated 01.04.2022, passed by this Court in S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 81/2022 (Mahendre Singh v. State & Ors.), this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner's application has wrongly been rejected. The petitioner's application, which was filed on 04.06.2021, cannot be decided in light of the Rules of 2021, which have come into force on 29.06.2021.

14. The petitioner's application for release on parole was filed prior to the amendment. Therefore, his application was required to be dealt with according to the provisions of Rules of 1958. The mere fact that a person is serving sentence of heinous crime, per se cannot be a reason to deny him parole.

15. Adverting to the report sent by the Superintendent of Police, this Court is of the view that the same is superfluous, if not shoddy, in nature. No specific report has been furnished by the Superintendent of Police for which petitioner's right to be released on parole shoul