The Court emphasized the importance of considering the petitioner's conduct during previous paroles, the period of sentence served, and the absence of evidence supporting the allegations in determining eligibility for parole.

ORDER

1. Instant parole petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with a prayer that order dated 29.10.2021 passed by the District Parole Advisory Committee Karauli, be quashed and set aside and petitioner be released on parole under Rule 9 of Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules.

2. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was convicted for the offences under Sections 148, 302, 307/149 and 323 of IPC and Sections 3/25 of Arms Act by the Trial Court and he was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. It is also contended that petitioner has served more than 14 years of imprisonment. He has served a substantive part of his sentence. It is further contended that petitioner granted two regular parole for 20 and 30 days and he never misused liberty of parole and on completion of parole period, he surrendered before the concerned authorities on the due date. Thus, he is entitled to be released on parole and the authorities have wrongly rejected his application on the ground of registration of 20 or more criminal cases against him.

3. In the reply, respondents have taken a stand that 20 or more cases were registered against the petitioner and after release on second parole, petitioner came in contact with anti-social elements and threatened various persons.

4. Heard counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record.

5. It is not in dispute that petitioner has been granted benefit of two regular paroles of 20 and 30 days and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him. It is also not in dispute that petitioner has served more than 14 years of sentence. Respondents have not submitted any material in support of their contention that after release on second parole, petitioner threatened various persons or that any FIR has been lodged against the petitioner.

6. Needless to say that in case petitioner is found involved in any controversial incident during the parole, petitioner can be called upon to serve his remaining sentence.

7. Having regard to the submissions made by the parties, looking into consideration and facts of the case and particularly, the period of sentence undergone by the petitioner, that nothing adverse was found against him during the period, he was granted two regular paroles and presently he is serving his sentence, we deem it just and proper to allow the present writ petition(parole) and set aside the impugned order dated 29.10.2021 qua the petitioner.

8. Consequently, the writ petition (parole) stands allowed. The recommendation of the Parole Advisory Committee dated 29.10.2021 qua the present petitioner is quashed and set aside. The Jail Authorities are directed to release the petitioner on third parole subject to furnishing of his personal bonds of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned authorities, with the stipulation that in case during this period petitioner commits any undesirable activity, he can be called upon to serve his remaining sentence and at the same time he shall maintain peace and tranquility during parole period.