1 D.B.CIV.WRIT (PAROLE) PETITION NO.9958/09. Pappu Lal Meena. VS State of Rajasthan. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER D.B.CIV.WRIT (PAROLE) PETITION NO.9958/09. Pappu Lal Meena. VERSUS State of Rajasthan. 18.09.2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DALIP SINGH HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.S.CHAUDHARI Mr.Najeeb A.Khan, for the petitioner. Mrs.Rekha Madnani, Deputy Government Counsel. ***** Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner for the grant of emergent parole under Rule 10(A) of the Rajasthan Emergent Parole Rules, 1958 as his application Annexure-2 submitted before the District Magistrate, Bundi was rejected vide order dated 29.07.2009 (Annexure-3). While rejecting the application, the District Magistrate, Bundi recorded that on account of the report received and the objection raised, the emergent parole cannot be granted to the petitioner. After this petition was filed, notices were issued to the respondents and in pursuance thereof, a reply has been filed before this court. As per the reply, the reasons for rejecting the application primarily have been spelt out by the respondents including the fact that the petitioner had absconded from police custody and could only be re- 2 D.B.CIV.WRIT (PAROLE) PETITION NO.9958/09. Pappu Lal Meena. VS State of Rajasthan. arrested on 26.12.2005 after 26 days. There are also other cases, five in number, pending against the petitioner including the offence under Section 365, 341, 323 and 427 I.P.C. and 395, 396, 397 and 120-B I.P.C. and those under the Arms Act. Along with the reply, the report of the concerned police stations has also been filed as Annexure-R/1 as well as the statements of the local residents of the area who have not supported the averments made in this petitioner and have denied that the health of the wife of the petitioner, on account of whose illness the emergent parole is sought for by the petitioner, is in fact not so as stated by the petitioner in the petition. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, who has reiterated that on humanitarian ground, the application may be allowed and the petitioner be released on emergent parole of seven days at least. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the antecedents of the accused petitioner, we do not find it to be a fit case to exercise the writ jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed. (K.S.CHAUDHARI),J. (DALIP SINGH),J. Solanki DS, Jr.P.A.