Beawar (Raj.) v. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Home

Judgment

4. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Home, Secretariat, Jaipur. State Of Rajasthan, Through Inspector General Of Prison, Rajasthan, Jaipur. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Ajmer. The Collector And District Magistrate, Beawar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr. Rakesh Trivedi on behalf of Mr. Vinay Pal Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Saini, AGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 09/05/2025

1. The convict-prisoner through his father, the petitioner herein, has preferred this criminal writ petition (parole) seeking release on second regular parole for a period of 30 days.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the convict-prisoner that parole application of the convict-prisoner was rejected on the ground that concerned District Collector has given an adverse report against the convict-prisoner. It is further contended that the convict-prisoner has remained in custody for a period of more than nine years. The Social Welfare Officer and the Superintendent [2025:RJ-JP:19617-DB] (2 of 5) [CRLW-448/2025] of Police have also recommended case of the prisoner for release on parole. His jail conduct as per the report of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ajmer is satisfactory and there was no justification in rejecting his parole application.

3. Learned Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General has opposed the criminal writ petition. It is contended that District Collector has reported that in view of the serious crime committed by the prisoner releasing on parole might adversely affect the society.

4. In counter to the above, learned counsel for the convict- prisoner has submitted that after availing first regular parole of 20 days, the convict-prisoner surrendered before the concerned authority within time.

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

6. Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules,1958 (for short ‘Rules of 1958’) is reproduced below:- “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 prisoner's 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 [2025:RJ-JP:19617-DB] (3 of 5) [CRLW-448/2025] 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 parole commits any offence or abets, directly or indirectly, commission of any offence, he has to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence in addition to any sentence imposed upon him by reason of such an offence. In cases the permanent release on parole is rejected the prisoner will be eligible for release on parole for 40 days every year subject to the same conditions for the remaining period of his sentence. Provided the cases of prisoners who have been sentenced to imprisonment for life, for an offence for which death penalty is one of the punishments provided by law or who have been sentenced to death but this sentence has been commuted under section 433 of Code of Criminal Procedure into one of life imprisonment shall not be placed before the State Committee for permanent release on parole unless he has served 14 years of imprisonment excluding remission but including the period of detention passed during enquiry, investigation or trial. Such prisoners may be released on parole for 40 days every year for the remaining period of their sentence subject to the conditions stated above.”

7. Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958 mandates that on completion of one-fourth of sentence and subject to the good conduct in jail, the prisoner may be released on first, second and third parole being of 20, 30 & 40 days respectively. The additional condition in the subsequent parole is that behavior of prisoner during the earlier parole had remained good and the conduct does not indicate relapse into crime, the case is to be recommended. [2025:RJ-JP:19617-DB] (4 of 5) [CRLW-448/2025]

8. Considering the fact that the convict-prisoner has remained in custody for a period of more than nine years; surrendered before concerned authority within time after availing first parole; his jail conduct is satisfactory; Social Welfare Officer and the Superintendent of Police have also recommended case of the prisoner for release on parole and the basis of report of District Collector for denying of second regular parole to the convict- prisoner has not been substantiated, the Criminal Writ Petition (Parole) is accordingly allowed.

9. The order of the District Parole Advisory Committee dated 25/26.03.2025 qua the convict-prisoner is quashed. The Jail Authorities are directed to release the petitioner on second regular parole for a period of thirty days on furnishing of his personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ajmer with the stipulation that he shall surrender himself before the Jail Authorities on the expiry of the parole period and shall maintain peace and tranquility during the parole period.

10. In case of his failure to surrender by stipulated date, the Jail Authorities shall proceed in accordance with law.

11. A copy of this order be also sent to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ajmer by fax today itself for necessary compliance.

12. It is being consistently noted by this Court that authorities in a mechanical manner are dealing with applications for parole. As per the reply filed, the social welfare department and SP have recommended for parole and inspite of this, the application for parole was rejected stating that the offences are [2025:RJ-JP:19617-DB] (5 of 5) [CRLW-448/2025] serious in nature. The order is passed without pointing out that there is a bar in the rules that parole shall not be granted in case of conviction in offences as in the case of convict-prisoner. This approach of non-application of mind is resulting in inmates being forced to knock the doors of this court.

13. Let a copy of this order be sent to the State Home Secretary for consideration and further actions, if so advised. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J INDER/38