1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B.CIVIL (Cr.Parole)WRIT PETITION NO.6800/2010 Punia Vs. State of Raj.& Ors. Date of order : 25.08.2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRAKASH TATIA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI Mr.J.S.Bhati for the petitioner. Mr.K.R.Bishnoi, P.P. ***** Petitioner was convicted for the commission of the offence under Sections 302,148, 452, 325/149, 324/149 I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergone life imprisonment and fine of Rs.200/-has been imposed by the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Banswara vide judgment dated 27.06.1994. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the High Court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioner has served sentences as under :- Years Months Days 1.Under Trial Period 01 11 19 2. After conviction 16 01 04 3.Jail remission 01 10 16 4.State remission 02 04 00 ___________________________________ Total 22 03 09 2 The petitioner was granted parole as under:- 1.First Parole for 20 days from 28.10.97 to 16.11.97. 2.Second parole for 30 days from 6.5.99 to 4.6.99 3. Third Parole for 40 days from 20.12.2000 to 28.11.2000. 4. Annual Parole for 40 days from 24.3.02 to 2.5.02. 5. Annual parole for 40 days from 9.7.03 to 17.8.03. 6.Annual Parole for 40 days from 3.04.06 to 12.5.06. 7. Annual Parole for 40 days from 9.11.07 to 18.12.07 8.Annual Parole for 40 days from 8.8.09 to 16.9.09 Therefore, petitioner remained in the society for total 219 days that too in different years ranging from 1997 to 2009. So far as required sentence of the petitioner for grant of permanent parole is concerned, he has already served required sentence for more than 14 years and it is not the case of the State that petitioner was not eligible for consideration for permanent parole, therefore petitioner case was considered by the State Parole Committee in its meeting dated 28.11.2008. However the State Parole Committee found that petitioner cannot be released on permanent parole because of the reason that though petitioner was granted all above paroles and the social welfare department has recommended for his permanent parole but since petitioner did not remain disciplined when he was sent to the Open Air Camp and he remained absent in the Jail Workshop in the month of January 2006, therefore, he cannot be released on parole. The State Parole Committee's report was accepted by the State Government vide order dated 21.01.2010. We considered the Parole Committee's decision (Annexure 1) dated 28.11.2008 and State Government's decision dated 21.01.2010. 3 We found from the facts referred above that petitioner's conduct was certainly found fit for grant of paroles on seven occasions that too spread in from the year 1997 and year 2009. The petitioner was accepted by the society, as he lived for a long period in the society when he was on parole. No incident occurred during this period nor petitioner misused the benefit of parole. The conduct of those period could not have been ignored and one incident of petitioner's not working in jail work shop or allegation of indiscipline on one occasion, cannot prevail over the petitioner conduct during the period of parole. Therefore, decision given by the Parole Committee and of State are result of erroneous conclusion drawn from admitted facts, hence liable to be set aside. Therefore, this parole petition deserves to be allowed, hence allowed. The authorities are directed to grant the petitioner permanent parole, however, the respondents may be free to impose the appropriate condition in accordance with law. (KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI ), J. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. Bharti