IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the DPAC's discretion in denying parole, emphasizing the need for valid concerns regarding law and order and the applicability of the old Parole Rules of 1958.

ORDER :

(Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, A.C.J.)

By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner assails correctness and validity of order dated 22.08.2023 by which his application for grant of first parole of 20 days has been rejected by the District Parole Advisory Committee, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the DPAC').

2. The petitioner was convicted for offence under Sections 370 (4), 342, 506, 120B, 354A, 376(D), 376(2)(F), 509 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'), Section 23 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2000") and Section 5(g)/6,7/8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'the POCSO Act of 2012') and sentenced with life imprisonment for remainder of natural life vide judgment of conviction and order sentence dated 25.04.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases, Jodhpur in Session Case No.116/2016. The petitioner has filed an appeal which has been registered as D.B. Criminal Appeal No.123/2018 against judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which is pending.

3. The petitioner was also convicted for commission of offence under Sections 376(2)(c), 377, 354, 342, 357, 506(2) IPC and sentenced with life imprisonment in case No.34/2014 (218/2013) vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.01.2023 passed by learned Additional Session Judge No.03 Gandhi Nagar Gujarat. In view of the provisions contained in Section 427(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Cr. P.C.'), the learned Trial Court also ordered that the sentence awarded to the petitioner shall run concurrently along with the sentence of life imprisonment awarded in Sessions Case No.116/2016 (152/2013) passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases, Jodhpur.

4. The petitioner applied for grant of first parole of 20 days before the District Collector, Jodhpur. His application was placed before the DPAC in its meeting dated 20.06.2023. The application was, however, rejected on the ground that the petitioner was not entitled to avail first parole of 20 days as per the provisions contained in the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as 'the new parole Rules of 2021'). The order of rejection was challenged by filing a petition being D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.613/2023. Vide order dated 10.07.2023, the decision taken by the DPAC in its meeting dated 20.06.2023, was set aside and the authorities were directed to consider the application filed by the petitioner for releasing him on first parole of 20 days afresh in accordance with the provisions contained in the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the old Parole Rules of 1958'), instead of the provisions contained in the new Parole Rules of 2021, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

5. Thereafter, case of the petitioner was again considered by the DPAC in its meeting dated 21.08.2023. The petitioner's application for grant of parole was, however, again rejected. Aggrieved by the second rejection, this petition has been filed.

6. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that even though once this Court directed respondents to examine and consider the petitioner's application for grant of parole under the old Parole Rules of 1958, the respondent authority DPAC was obliged under the law to decide the application under the old Parole Rules of 1958, but in complete defiance of the order passed by this Court, vide impugned order dated 22.08.2023, application has been rejected on untenable ground. The submission of learned Senior counsel for the petitioner is that perforce Section 427 (2) Cr. P.C., life sentence awarded in Gujarat case shall run concurrently with the sentence of life imprisonment awarded in Jodhpur case by operatio