Rohitash @ Rohit vs State And Ors

Heard.

Perused the material available on the record.

The convict petitioner is undergoing imprisonment after having been convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections 366, 376 (10 years’ imprisonment and fine.

The first parole application submitted by the convict has been rejected by the impugned recommendations dated 15.10.2019 assigning the reason that the officers of the District Mehsana (Gujarat), from where the convict petitioner hails, have forwarded an adverse recommendation. However, after going through the language of the adverse recommendations, I am of the opinion that the reasons assigned therein are absolutely vague. It is stated in the report that the petitioner’s parents do not reside at their own house. Be that as it may. The only apprehension, which is expressed by the committee for denying parole is that the convict might abscond, if he is released on parole. This apprehension can very well be taken care of by requiring the convict to furnish heavy bail and bonds.

Thus, the instant miscellaneous petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned recommendations dated 15.10.2019 is quashed qua the convict petitioner. It is ordered that the convict petitioner Rohitash @ Rohit S/o Shyamgiri shall be released on first parole of twenty days upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur on the usual terms and conditions. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur shall be at liberty to impose other adequate and reasonable conditions to ensure return of the convict to the State custody after availing the parole. The term of parole shall be computed from the date of his actual release.