IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that parole is a privilege, not a right, and must be granted based on satisfactory conduct and compliance with established rules.

ORDER :

1. These Criminal Writ Petitions (Parole) have been filed by the accused-petitioners with the prayer for releasing them on regular paroles for a period of forty days:

2. It is contended by counsel for the accused-petitioners that the accused-petitioners were earlier granted regular paroles either by the Hon’ble Supreme Court or by this Court. Counsel further submits that after availing all the paroles, they surrendered themselves before the concerned jail authorities within the stipulated time and have not misused the liberty of paroles earlier granted to them. Counsel further submits that jail conduct of the accused-petitioners has been found satisfactory and rejection of their parole application by the Parole Advisory Committee is without application of mind. Counsel further submits that all the petitioners have served the sentences for a period of more than 30 years and petitioner namely Abre Rehmat Ansari has served a sentence for a period of more than 26 years. Counsel further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of one of the petitioner namely Fazlur Rehman Sufi @ Shamim Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in Criminal Appeal No. 340/2019 and Arising Out of S.L.P. No. 11056/2018 has allowed the parole relying upon the judgment laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Asfaq Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2017) 15 SCC 55 decided on 22.02.2019 which is reproduced here as under:

“Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Leave granted.

The appellant had applied for parole which was rejected by the Jail Authorities against which a writ petition was filed which was dismissed by the High Court.

No doubt the appellant is convicted for the offence under the provisions of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (“TADA Act”). However, it is also a fact that the appellant has undergone more than 24½ years of imprisonment.

In these circumstances, having regard to the law laid down by this Court in Asfaq vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2017) 15 SCC 55, we are of the opinion that the appellant shall be released on parole for a period of 21 days from the date of release on the condition that he shall report to the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station on every third day.

The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.”

3. Counsel further submits that the petitioners (namely Fazlur Rehman Sufi @ Shamim, Abre Rehmat Ansari, Mohammad Afaq & Dr. Jalees Ansari) were granted 2nd/3rd paroles by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 320/2022 titled as Fazlur Rehman Sufi @ Shamim Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and other connected writ petitions vide order dated 09.02.2023 which is reproduced here as under:

“1. The petitioners, who are convicted under the TADA Act and whose conviction has been upheld uptil the Supreme Court, have filed these parole applications. The petitioner- Fazlur Rehman Sufi @ Shamim has challenged Rules 6(4), 11(3) & 16(2)(c) of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 2021”) and the other petitioners have simply filed the parole applications seeking parole.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were earlier granted parole by the Apex Court and some of the petition