The court established that satisfactory conduct during parole can justify further parole requests, emphasizing the rehabilitative purpose of parole.

JUDGMENT

1. This parole petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer that the petitioner be released on 4th regular parole for 40 days under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoner's (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958 (for short, 'the Rules of 1958').

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was convicted by the trial court vide judgment dated4.11.2011 for the offence under Sections 302, 460 IPC & Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. He filed a D.B. Cr. Appeal No. 634/2013 against the said judgment, which came to be dismissed. He submits that the petitioner has served about 12 years of sentence. Thus, he has served a substantive part of his sentence. The petitioner was granted 20, 30 and 40 days' regular parole, but he did not misuse the liberty granted to him and timely surrendered. He further submits that the petitioner's jail conduct is satisfactory. The petitioner filed an application before District Parole Advisory Committee for releasing him on parole, but the same has been rejected vide order dated 18.3.2021 on the ground that he did not appear in the roll call meeting in the evening, for which FIR No. 1049/2019 was registered at Police Station, Sanganer, Jaipur for the offence under Section 224 IPC. In the said case, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo 3 month's imprisonment and even during pendency of the case, the petitioner was granted regular parole. He further submits that although 48 other cases were said to be pending against the petitioner, but most of the cases have been decided. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to be granted 4th regular parole of 40 days.

3. In the reply, it is submitted that the petitioner is an under trial prisoner. It has also been submitted that 9 criminal cases are pending against the petitioner at different police stations. It has also been submitted that the petitioner did not appear in the roll-call meeting in the evening and jumped from there, hence the petitioner should not be granted 4th regular parole.

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

5. The purpose of parole is to facilitate family ties being maintained.

6. Needless to say that in case the petitioner engage himself in any untoward incident during 4th parole of 40 days, same can be withdrawn and the petitioner can be called upon to serve his remaining sentence.

7. Considering the purpose of parole as also the period already suffered by the petitioner and more importantly the fact that the petitioner was granted 3 regular paroles of 20, 30 and 40 days, where he timely surrendered and he was granted parole even during the pendency of criminal case, we deem it just and proper to grant the petitioner 4th parole of 40 days.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated 18.3.2021 qua petitioner stands quashed and set aside. We direct the concerned District Authority to release the convict-petitioner on 4th regular parole of 40 days, subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 50,000/-each to the satisfaction of the concerned District Magistrate with the stipulation that in case during 4th regular parole of 40 days, the petitioner commits any undesirable activity, he can be called upon to serve his remaining sentence and at the same time he shall also maintain peace and tranquility during the parole period. The petitioner shall also report to the nearest police station on alternate day. It will be open to the concerned District Magistrate to put any other condition, as per Rules, to secure the presence of the petitioner Mahendra Saini, on completion of 40 days' parole period.