Honble CHAUHAN, J.–Mr. Martin Luther King Jr., the great American Civil Libertarian once said. ``I have a dream to be free at last, to be free at last, to be free at last. The promise of liberty is not just enshrined in the Constitution of India, but the dream of liberty is also engrained in every soul. Even a convicted prisoner, incarcerated within the strong walls of a jail, shackled to the chains, dreams of freedom at last. Such was the hope of the Petitioner after he completed 1/4 of his life sentence. He had prayed that he too should be released on regular parole of twenty days under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisons (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958 (henceforth to be referred to as `the Parole Rules for short). However, the hope was short lived. Vide Order dated 14.6.04, the Advisory Committee, constituted under the Parole Rules, rejected the Petitioners case for regular parole. Hence the petition before us.

(2). Mr. Suresh Sahni, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has challenged the said Order on four accounts. Firstly, the Advisory Committee has rejected the Petitioners parole on the ground that although the Petitioner had sought regular parole on the ground of operation of his mothers eyes, but there are other brothers of his who could get the operation done. Therefore, according to the Social Welfare Officer the parole need not be granted for the said purpose. According to Mr. Sahni, a convicted prisoner need not specify any reason for seeking a regular parole under Rule 9 of the Parole Rules. Secondly, the Advisory Board has ipse dixit accepted the adverse Police Report without considering the fact that the said report is a mechanical one. Thirdly, although the Petitioner is unmarried, yet the Social welfare Officer has stated that the Petitioners wife and children have also requested that the Petitioner should not be released on parole. Thus, the said report is contrary to the factual matrix of the case. Fourthly, the conduct of the Petitioner should be taken into account only up to the date of the impugned order. The subsequent events should not be considered. For, what is being challenged is the decision of the Advisory Board as it was taken on the date of the impugned order. Therefore, the subsequent conduct is immaterial.

(3). On the other hand, Mr. M.L. Goyal, the learned Additional Government Advocate, has argued that since parole can not be claimed, as of right, therefore, the convicted prisoner should furnish a reason for seeking a parole. Secondly, the Police Report is not a mechanical one. Thirdly, the Petitioners wife and children have stated that the Petitioner should not be released on parole. Fourthly, on 4.6.05 the Petitioner was involved in a fray in the jail. Thus, he has flouted the jail disciple. Hence, the Petitioner should not be granted the benefit of parole.

(4). We have not only heard the Learned Counsels, but have also scanned the record of the case.

(5). In order to appreciate the first contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, it is imperative to examine Rule 9 and Rule 10A of the Parole Rules. Rule 9 is as under:–

``9. Parole period.–A prisoner, who has completed with remission, if any, one-fourth of his sentence and subject to good conduct in the Jail, may be released on 1st parole for 20 days including days of journey to home and back, and for 30 days on 2nd parole provided his behaviour has been good during the 1st parole and for 40 days on third parole provided his behaviour has been good during the second parole. If during the third parole also the prisoner has behaved well and his character has been exceedingly well and if the prisoners conduct has been such that he is not likely to relapse into crime, his case may be recommended to the Government through the State Committee for permanent release on parole on such conditions as deemed fit by the Superintendent Jail and the District Magistrate concerned; the chief condition among them being that if the prisoner while on paro

Click Here to Read the rest of this document