DBCWP (Parole) 3951/09 Gopal Singh Vs. State & Ors. (1) In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan At Jaipur Bench, Jaipur O R D E R In D.B. Civil Writ Petition (Parole) No.3951/2009 Gopal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and others Date of Order :: 10th July,2009 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Ray Goyal Hon'ble Mr. Justice Guman Singh Mr. Rohan Jain, counsel for petitioner. Ms. Rekha Madnani, Deputy Government Counsel for State. ............. PER HON'BLE J.R. GOYAL,J :- By way of this writ petition the petitioner is seeking first parole of 20 days which has been declined by the District Parole Committee, Sikar vide its order dated 20/1/2009. 2. The petitioner Gopal Singh has been convicted for the offence under sections 302, 323 & 341 IPC by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sikar and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine and presently he is undergoing sentence in Central Jail, Jaipur. 3. It is not disputed that petitioner DBCWP (Parole) 3951/09 Gopal Singh Vs. State & Ors. (2) has suffered 1/4th part of his sentence including remission, therefore, he is entitled to be considered for first regular parole of 20 days under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (hereinafter shall be referred as Parole Rules). A bare perusal of the impugned order reveals that his first parole was declined on the ground of adverse report of Superintendent of Police, Sikar and also of District Social Welfare Officer. 4. The State of Rajasthan in written reply supported the order of District Parole Advisory Committee and also averred that petitioner cannot claim parole as a matter of right. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Deputy Government Counsel for the State. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that parole could be refused only on the ground that petitioner's conduct in the jail was not good. While relying upon the judgment in Anil Thakur Vs. State of Rajasthan, DBCWP (Parole) 3951/09 Gopal Singh Vs. State & Ors. (3) reported in 2001 (1) WLC (Raj.) 460, it was further submitted that merely on the vague report of Superintendent of Police, Sikar and Social Welfare Department, Sikar, the case of the petitioner for release on parole could not be rejected as there was no report of Superintendent of Jail, Jaipur regarding bad conduct of the petitioner. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor contended that the action of the committee was based on the adverse report of the police officials as well as Social Welfare Department, therefore, petitioner was rightly denied the parole. 8. We have considered the submissions made before us by the rival counsels for the parties. 9. Rule 9 of the Parole Rules provides a complete procedure and machinery to consider the cases of release on parole which reads as under :- 9. Parole Period.- A prisoner, who has completed with remission, if any, DBCWP (Parole) 3951/09 Gopal Singh Vs. State & Ors. (4) [one-fourth] of his sentence and subject to good conduct in the Jail, may be released on 1st parole for 20 days including days of journey to home and back, and for 30 days on 2nd parole provided his behaviour has been good during the 1st parole and for 40 days on third parole provided his behaviour has been good during the second parole. If during the third parole also the prisoner has behaved well and his character has been exceedingly well and if the prisoner's conduct has been such that he is not likely to relapse into crime, his case may be recommended to the Government through the [State Committee] for permanent release on parole on such conditions as deemed fit by the Superintendent Jail and the District Magistrate concerned: the chief condition among them being that if the prisoner while on parole commits any offence or abets, directly or indirectly, commission of any offence, he has to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence in addition to any sentence imposed upon him by reason of such an offence. In case the permanent release on parole is rejected, the prisoner will be DBCWP (Parole) 3951/09 Gopal Singh Vs. State & Ors. (5) eligible for release on parole for 40 days every year subject to the same conditions for the remaining period of his sentence : [Provided that cases of prisoners who have been sentenced to imprisonment for life, for an offence for which death penalty is one of the punishments provided by law or who have been sentenced to death but this sentence has been commuted under section 433 of Code of Criminal Procedure into one of life imprisonment shall not be placed before the State Committee for permanent release on parole unless he has served 14 years of imprisonment excluding remission, but including the period of detention passed during enquiry, investigation or trial. Such prisoners may be released on parole for 40 days every year for the remaining period of their sentence subject to the conditions stated above.] 10. It is evident from the above provision that a prisoner who has completed with remission, if any, 1/4th part of his sentence DBCWP (Parole) 3951/09 Gopal Singh Vs. State & Ors. (6) and subject to good conduct in the jail may be released on first parole for 20 days including the days of journey to home and back. Here in the case on hand there is nothing on the record to suggest that conduct of the present petitioner in jail was not good. It appears from the impugned order that the parole of the petitioner was declined taking into consideration the report of Superintendent of Police, Sikar and Social Welfare Department. According to the report of Superintendent, Jail, Sikar, the release of the petitioner may cause danger to the victim party and the Assistant Commissioner, Social Welfare, Sikar also sent the negative report stating therein that the house of the petitioner is not damaged and his release may disturb public tranquility but in support of these opinions no material was placed on the record. In similar situation, the Division Bench of this Court in Anil Thakur's case (supra) held that release of convict cannot be refused merely on ipse dixit of police report. As per the requirement of DBCWP (Parole) 3951/09 Gopal Singh Vs. State & Ors. (7) Rule 9 of the Parole Rules a prisoner is entitled to be released on parole if he fulfills all requirements of the said rule. In the instant case, we do not find any substantial reason for not releasing the petitioner on first parole. In these circumstances we deem it proper to allow this writ petition. 11. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of District Parole Advisory Committee dated 20/1/2009 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner Gopal Singh son of Prabhu Singh shall be released on parole for a period of 20 days in consonance with Rule 9 of the Parole Rules on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- to the satisfaction of the Superintendent of Jail, Sikar. The Superintendent of Jail shall also fix the date for surrender of the convict petitioner before jail authorities. (Guman Singh),J. (J.R. Goyal),J. VS Shekhawat/- Jr. P.A. D30