Order

10/09/2024

1. The present petitioner, who is languishing in Central Jail, Udaipur, has preferred the present parole seeking release on third parole for 40 days.

2. The petitioner applied for his release on parole under the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (For short hereinafter called 'the Rules'). The authorities – District Parole Advisory Committee, Udaipur in its meeting dated 04.10.2023 rejected the application made by the petitioner. It is against this rejection, the petitioner is in writ.

3. The Jail Department has submitted its reply.

4. The petitioner, who was convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment and a fine in Case No.80/2015 vide judgment dated 16.10.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities) Cases, Udaipur.

5. Learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the petitioner submits that after having entitlement of grant for third regular parole of 40 days, the case of the prisoner was sent to the District Magistrate, Udaipur. The District Parole Advisory Committee, Udaipur held its meeting on 04.10.2023 and considered the matter of prisoner for grant of third regular parole of 40 days. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Udaipur sent its report dated 14.07.2023 stating therein that prisoner was absconded from the Open Air Camp, therefore, he was punished from Jail punishment on 06.08.2023.

6. Learned Amicus Curiae submits that after the petitioner has been released twice on parole and had complied with all the necessary conditions, however, when he was in an Open Air Camp, Udaipur, he escaped for 17 days but was re-arrested in August, 2022. On 06.07.2023, the petitioner was punished under Section 224 of the IPC. The petitioner has suffered jail punishment on 06.08.2023. Learned Amicus Curiae submits that the petitioner has already suffered custody of 12 years, 9 months and 10 days.

7. Learned Amicus curiae further submits that the State Level Parole Committee has rejected the permanent parole in accordance with Rule 14(c) of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘Rule 14(c) of the Rules of 1958’) which reads as follows:-

14(c): Prisoners who have escaped from the Jail or Police custody or attempted to escape;

8. Learned Amicus Curiae further submits that in the given factual matrix and particularly when the petitioner though hit by Rule 14(c) of the Rules of 1958 but does not fall under the case of non-eligible prisoner for grant of parole because of the custody period, his adherence under two paroles i.e. parole first and parole second, which have been earlier granted to the petitioner, further the petitioner has undergone the jail punishment and nothing extraordinary has been pointed out by the respondents to restrain the appellant-accused to go on parole.

9. Learned Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General opposes the parole petition but is unable to refuse the factual matrix of the case, narrated by the learned Amicus Curiae. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

11. On conjoint consideration of the custody period, the first and second parole having undergone by the petitioner as per the conditions imposed, even though he escaped for 17 days and thereafter had undergone the jail punishment, nothing extraordinary having been pointed out at this stage.

12. The convict has already undergone a sentence of 12 years, 09 months and 10 days as on 27.08.2024. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner does not suffer from any ineligibility for his release on parole as prescribed under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021. More so, Ipsi 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.

1