Denial of permanent parole on technical grounds requires adverse evidence; good conduct can warrant parole eligibility.

ORDER

1. This parole petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer that the order dated 8.4.2021 issued pursuant to the meeting of Permanent Parole Committee dated 10.3.2021 whereby the petitioner has been denied permanent parole on the ground of non availing of three regular paroles.

2. It has been submitted in the petition that the learned Special Judge POCSO Act-2012 and Child Protection Commission Act 2005 No.3, Alwar vide its order dt. 14.2.2019 convicted the petitioner for the offence under Sections 376(1) of IPC for life imprisonment and in default of payment of fine Rs. 10,000/- to further undergo 3 months additional RI and Section 11/12 of POCSO Act, for 3 years RI and in default of payment of fine Rs. 3,000/- to further undergo one month RI and Section 14(1) of POCSO Act, 2012 for five years RI and in default of payment of Rs. 3,000/- to further undergo one month additional RI and Section 67 of IT Act for three years RI in default of payment of 10,000/- to further undergo one month additional RI and Section 67(b) of IT Act for five years RI and in default of payment of fine Rs.20,000/- to further undergo one months additional RI. All the sentences shall run concurrently. After that petitioner has filed D. B. Criminal Appeal No.88/2019 Sunil @ Sammer @ Lallu V/s State in which the Hon'ble Court vide judgment dated 02.04.2019 converted the conviction into 12 years rigorous imprisonment in place of life imprisonment for the offence under Section 376(1) IPC. Out of which the accused petitioner has served 8 years 3 months and 4 days including the remission as on 22.4.2021.

3. It has further been submitted that the petitioner had served 8 years 3 months and 4 days of imprisonment out of the total sentence of 12 years till 22.4.2021. The conduct of the petitioner has remained absolutely good and he is continuously getting remission in jail on the basis of his good conduct and behavior. Thus, he is entitled to be released on permanent parole.

4. In the reply, it is submitted that the case of the petitioner was placed before State Level Parole Advisory Committee but the same has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not availed three regular paroles, although there is no specific period of sentence for eligibility of permanent parole. It has further been submitted that after availing three regular paroles, his case will be considered for permanent parole.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record.

Issue raised, in the instant case, is no longer res-integra.

6. In the case of Suresh & Others Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2011 (3) WLC 643, Division Bench of this Court had held that on the technical ground that the petitioner has not availed three regular paroles is not a good ground to deny the parole until some adverse material is brought on record that if the petitioner is released on parole, the same will cause disturbance in the society.

7. Having regard to the submissions made by the parties and in view of the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court, cited herein above, I deem it just and proper to allow the present petition for parole and set aside the impugned order dated 8.4.2021 qua petitioner, whereby permanent parole was refused to him.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated 8.4.2021 qua petitioner stands quashed and set aside and the concerned District Authority is directed to release the convict-petitioner on permanent parole, subject to furnishing his personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- before the concerned District Magistrate. The petitioner is also directed to furnish two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each within two weeks to the satisfaction of the concerned District Magistrate with the stipulation that in case during permanent parole, the petitioner commits any undesirable activity, he can be called upon to serve his remaining sentence and at the same time he shall