DBCW [PAROLE] 5446/10 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH D.B. Civil Writ Petition [Parole] No.5446/2010 Ghan Shyam @ Bal Ram Versus State & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 06/07/2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATYA PRAKASH PATHAK HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.S. KOTHARI Mr. Lakhan Singh Tomar, for petitioner Ms. Rekha Madnani, Dy.Govt.Counsel, for State *** Convict petitioner has sought first parole for a period of 20 days under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958 (to be referred hereinafter as the Parole Rules). The petitioner was convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bandikui, District Dausa vide judgment dt.13th October, 2008 in Sessions Case No.5/07 u/s.302 IPC. As per contents of the petition, the petitioner has served sentence more than 5 yrs. & 5 months. Reply to the petition has been filed. It has been the contention of the learned Counsel that Social Welfare Officer has recommended the case of the petitioner for grant of parole. It is also submitted that Superintendent, Central Jail has also recommended the case for grant of parole taking into DBCW [PAROLE] 5446/10 [2] consideration the conduct and behaviour of the petitioner. Learned Counsel submits that only on account of apprehension of breach of peace, the District Advisory Committee has declined grant of parole to the convict petitioner in its meeting dt.19th March, 2010. It is submitted that mere apprehension of breach of peace is not sufficient to decline parole unless there appears cogent reasons. On the other hand, learned Deputy Government Counsel has opposed the submission and submits that grant of parole is not a matter of right. The District Advisory Committee has properly appreciated the matter and rejected the prayer made by convict-petitioner for grant of parole. We have considered the submissions and perused the material available on the file. We are satisfied that there does not appear any material to justify rejection of parole. Mere apprehension regarding breach of peace is not sufficient to reject the prayer made by the convict for grant of parole. Two reports are in favour of the convict-petitioner. One is of the Superintendent, Central Jail and other is of Social Welfare Officer. Therefore, we are of the opinion that petition is required to be allowed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and it is hereby directed that the convict petitioner Ghan Shyam @ Bal Ram S/o Shri Mangi Lal shall be DBCW [PAROLE] 5446/10 [3] released on first parole for a period of 20 days on usual terms and conditions to be determined by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur with a further undertaking to the effect that convict petitioner shall surrender before him immediately after completion of period of parole. The writ petition stands disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the convict petitioner through Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur. [S.S.KOTHARI], J. [SATYA PRAKASH PATHAK],J. FRBOHRA5446DBCW2010 06-07.doc