The court affirmed the statutory right to parole, emphasizing rehabilitation and the necessity of balancing victim safety with the rights of the accused.

Order :

1. The present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner -convict through his wife.

2. Mr. K.R. Bhati learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned District Parole Advisory Committee, Udaipur has committed an error of law in rejecting petitioner’s application for first parole under the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (herein referred to “the rules of 1958).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 9 years, 4 months and 18 days.

4. He further submitted that as per the report, the Superintendent of Jail has recommended the release of the petitioner on parole upon finding his satisfactory conduct in the jail.

5. While highlighting that it is petitioner’s statutory right to get first parole, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that reasons given by the learned District Parole Advisory Committee, Udaipur are not relevant, particularly when none of the authorities, including the Social Welfare & Empowerment Department, and jail authorities has given unfavourable remarks about petitioner’s conduct. The Deputy Director, Social Welfare & Empowerment Department vide his report that 11.11.2024 has also recommended the appellant can be granted parole on the condition that during his parole period, he may not enter in the village concerned. The superintendent of Jail through his letter dated 06.11.2024 has also indicated that the victim and the convict both are living in the same village and looking into the revengeful attitude among them in their society, there might be possibility of commission of any crime.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 prescribes ineligibility for release, in which, the present offence does not fall. He also submits that in similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court has granted parole vide order dated 28.02.2024 passed in D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.148/2024 (Sahi Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.).

7. The Jail Department has submitted its reply.

8. Learned Government Counsel opposed the grant of parole by contending that petitioner is serving sentence pursuant to his conviction and since he has committed grave offence, he be not released on parole. It was argued that releasing the convict- petitioner on parole would have negative bearing on social and psychological well-being of the victim, whose residence is just adjacent to convict-petitioner’s house. Learned Government Counsel further submitted that in case, the Court is inclined to release the petitioner on first parole, as he has already completed a long period in custody, then the condition of not visiting/returning in the village may be imposed upon the petitioner.

9. Mr. Bhati, at this juncture, submitted that the convict- petitioner would spend his time of parole at the place which is away from the victim’s place of residence.

10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

11. The convict has already undergone a sentence of 09 years, 4 months and 18 days. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner does not suffer from any ineligibility for his release on parole as prescribed under Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 . More so, ipse dixit reason of adverse police report cannot be a ground for refusing parole. It is well settled that parole is a device for reformation of a criminal for his rehabilitation in society. The object of parole can’t be frustrated on the basis of vague and ill-founded reasons.

12. The Court is mindful of the legislative intent that the contact between the accused and the victim should be prevented in order to minimize the trauma experienced by the victim. According to us, if the victim is faced with the presence of the convict- petitioner, it would have an adverse impact on his/her mental well-being and he/she would be forced to re-visit the trauma and be remi