The policy of the State on the date of conviction would be the determinative factor in determining the entitlement of a convict for premature release.

ORDER :

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking 30 days parole from the actual date of release.

2. Submissions have been made that petitioner was accorded first 20 days parole and he did not report on the scheduled date. Whereafter, 7 days regular parole was denied to the petitioner, against which petitioner approached this Court by filing DBCRLWP No.153/2020, which was allowed by the Court. Whereafter, again when the petitioner sought 15 days parole, which was rejected, the petitioner approached this Court by filing DBCRLWP No.451/2021, which was allowed on 28.09.2021.

3. Now, again the prayer made for 30 days parole has been rejected, which is not justified.

4. A response to the petition has been filed inter-alia indicating that as the petitioner has been convicted for offence under Section 460 IPC, in terms of provisions of Rule 16(2)(b) of Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021 (‘Rules of 2021’) he is not entitled for parole.

5. Further submissions have been made that as the petitioner did not report after completion of the first parole, he is not entitled to the relief as prayed in the petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that once the petitioner was accorded parole by this Court for seven days and fifteen days in DBCRLWP No.153/2020 & 451/2021 respectively, the denial of the parole by the respondents now is not justified.

7. Learned GA with reference to the provisions of Rules of 2021 reiterated the submissions. It was submitted that under Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (‘Rules of 1958’) under which the petitioner was first granted the two paroles, the provision though prohibits release of the convict under Section 460 IPC, however, ‘Ordinarily’ has been used and, therefore, the petition deserves rejection.

8. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties. The fact that conviction of the petitioner has taken place before coming into force the Rules of 2021 and this Court in Laxman Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: DBCRLWP No.180/2022, decided on 27.03.2023 has come to the following conclusion:-

“The facts are not in dispute, wherein, the petitioner was convicted on 17.07.2011 and in the past he has been granted benefit of parole on several occasions.

The present application has been rejected by the District Parole Committee only on account of provisions of Rule 16 (2) (b) of the Rules 2021, wherein, it is inter-alia provided that the prisoners convicted under Section 364 IPC shall not be eligible for release on parole.

The plea raised is that the Rules 2021, in view of the fact that petitioner was convicted on 17.07.2011 and the Rules came into force on 30.06.2021, would have no application.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh (supra) inter-alia observed as under:-

“4 Following the law laid down by this Court, in determining the entitlement of a convict for premature release, the policy of the State Government on the date of the conviction would have to be the determinative factor. However, if the policy which was prevalent on the date of the conviction is subsequently liberalised to provide more beneficial terms, those should also be borne in mind.”

(emphasis supplied)

After making the above observations, the Court inter-alia came to the following conclusion:-

“15 Be that as it may, we are of the considered view that the circumstances which have been set out in the earlier part of this order order should merit fresh consideration by the State Government. Since the grant of premature release is essentially an executive function relatable to Article 161 of the Constitution, we are of the view that it would be appropriate to direct that the matter should be reevaluated bearing in mind all the relevant circumstances some of which have been noted above. There is merit in the submission which has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that if the fact that the petitioner was involved in a murder, following a money dispute, is held to b