Rahul Alias Rahul Balai vs State

Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner who is serving life imprisonment in Central Jail, Jaipur on being convicted & sentenced by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur vide judgment dt. 01.11.2006 for offence u/Ss 364, 120B & 387 IPC in Sessions Case No. 37/2006 against which D.B. Criminal Appeal-1135/2006 preferred by the petitioner against the judgment & order of conviction awarded by the learned trial Judge is pending consideration before this Court. Earlier the petitioner submitted application for grant of first parole for a period of 20 days and that came to be allowed by the learned District Magistrate granting him the benefit of first parole for a period of 20 days from 29.06.2011-18.07.2011 which is evident from the document Annx. 1 dt. 29.06.2011 and from the material which has come on record this fact is not disputed that the petitioner abide by the conditions referred to in the order releasing him on first parole by the learned District Magistrate, after he became eligible for grant of second parole, again submitted application before the competent authority for a period of 30 days u/R 9 of Rules, 1958 and his application came to be rejected vide order Annx. 2 dt. 16.07.2012.

Counsel for petitioner submits that as regards the nature of offence, that was already looked into by the competent authority while granting him first parole and that could not be considered to be a basis for the requirement of R. 9 of the Rules, 1958 for grant of parole and further submits that once the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur in the nominal roll has certified about his jail conduct to be satisfactory and he has abide by the conditions at the stage when he availed first parole u/R 9 of the Rules, 1958, there appears no justification which could be considered to deny him for grant of second parole and the letter of rejection dt. 16.07.2012 Annx. 2 as regards the petitioner, referred to in para-11, on the premise of nature of offence committed by him is wholly arbitrary and to that extent it deserves to be quashed.

The Deputy Government Advocate while supporting the order impugned submits that nature of offence committed by the incumbent is one of the factor to be kept in mind and the committee on overall assessment and his jail conduct did not found him suitable for grant of second parole as prayed for.

Under the scheme of Rules, 1958, the application for grant of parole could be considered u/R 9 provided the prisoner has completed with remission, if any, 1/4th of his sentence and subject to conduct in jail, become eligible to be considered for release on first parole for a period of 20 days and if the behaviour of the prisoner remain good during the first parole he become eligible to be considered for second parole for a period of 30 days under the scheme of Rules, 1958.

The reasons assigned by the respondent regarding his nature of offence and undergoing sentence cannot be considered to be material, as the first parole was granted to him by the learned District Magistrate obviously after taking note of the nature of offence for which he was convicted and undergoing sentence, that being so after his jail conduct being satisfactory and he has not violated either of the conditions when release on parole, in our considered view, the petitioner deserves to be released on second parole as prayed for.

Consequently, the writ petition stands allowed and the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur is directed to release petitioner (Rahul @ Rahul Balai S/o Sharwan Lal) on second parole, if not availed of, for 30 days including days of journey to home & back from the date of his release on furnishing his personal bond besides one surety of Rs. 25,000/- to the satisfaction of jail authority with the stipulation that he shall surrender himself and return back to the Central Jail, Jaipur on expiry of 30 days (supra) to be notified by jail authority and shall maintain peace and tranquility during parole period. In case of failure to surrender by petitioner on stipulated date, the jail authority shall proceed in accordance with law. A copy of this order be sent to the petitioner through jail authority for compliance. No costs.