[2025:RJ-JP:50698-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1599/2025 Jagdish Chand S/o Shri Pyar Chand @ Pyare Lal, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Semrol, Police Station Garoth, District Mandsaur (M.P.) (At Present Serving His Sentence in Central Jail, Kota)

Through His Daughter Radha Bai W/o Shri Anil Mali, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Semrol, Tehsil Garoth, District Mandsaur (M.P.)

458880.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Home, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The District Parole Advisory Committee, Through its Chairman, District Magistrate, Kota.

3. Superintendent Central Jail, Kota.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishram Prajapati, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG with Mr. Aman Kumar, Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL

Order

16/12/2025 Accused petitioner has filed this Criminal Writ Petition (Parole) seeking second regular parole for a period of 30 days.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was awarded death sentence by Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Kota vide judgment and order dated 29.7.2019 and 31.7.2019 respectively passed in Sessions Case No. 18/2016. He sent the Death Reference before this Court for confirmation of the death sentence, which was numbered as D.B. Criminal Death Reference No. 5 of 2019. The petitioner also filed a D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 345/2019 before this Court. Both the cases were clubbed together and decided vide order dated 20.7.2020. This Court while partly allowing the appeal, upheld the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 302/120-B, 460/120B and 394/120B IPC and on sentence part converted the punishment of death sentence to life imprisonment and fine. Accordingly, the death reference sent by the trial court was declined.

It is also submitted by counsel for the petitioner that parole application of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the Superintendent of Police, District Mandsaur has given an adverse report against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner has remained in custody for a period of more than 12 years. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has availed 1^st regular parole for 20 days and he himself surrendered in time after expiry of said parole period and has not misused the liberty of parole granted to him by this Court. As per the report of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Alwar, his jail conduct was satisfactory from 4.6.2024. Thus, there is no justification in rejecting the petitioner’s second parole application.

Learned GA-cum-Additional Advocate General has vehemently opposed the present criminal writ petition (Parole) and it is submitted that the Superintendent of Police has reported that if the petitioner is released on parole, an untoward incident may take place.

In counter to the above, counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the report of the social welfare department is in favour of the petitioner and the jail conduct of the petitioner, as reported by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Alwar is also satisfactory.

We have considered the contentions advanced by counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole)

Rules, 1958 reads 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 Ist 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 Ist 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 prisoner's conduct has been such that he is not likely to relapse into crime, his case may be