Manraj Meena vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Narendra Kumar Jain-I, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Convict-Petitioner has preferred this parole writ petition for grant of first parole of 20 days.

The Respondents in their reply have admitted that conduct of the Petitioner during jail custody was satisfactory and report of concerned Superintendent of Police as well as Social Welfare Officer was also in favour of the Petitioner and both recommended to release the Petitioner on parole.

I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and examined impugned order dated 10.05.2011 passed by District Magistrate, Tonk on the basis of recommendation of District Parole Advisory Committee.

From the impugned order it appears that the reason for rejection of the application of the Petitioner is that it is his first parole application. The reason assigned by District Parole Advisory Committee appears to be flimsy in nature and cannot be said to be in accordance with law. When concerned Jail Superintendent, Superintendent of Police and Social Welfare Officer, all have recommended the case of the Petitioner for grant of parole, then there was no reason for not granting parole to the Petitioner. In these circumstances, impugned order dated 10.05.2011 qua the Petitioner is liable to be quashed and the same is hereby quashed.

Writ petition is, accordingly, allowed and it is directed that convict-Petitioner namely Manraj Meena S/o. Shri Mishri Lal Meena be released on first parole of 20 days on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousands) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Jail Superintendent. It will be open for the concerned Jail Superintendent to put any other condition, as per rules, to secure the presence of the Petitioner.

A copy of this order be sent for information to convict-Petitioner and for necessary action to concerned Jail Superintendent.