CW 4829/10 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No. 4829/2010 Kana Ram Versus State & Ors. Date of Order ::: 07/07/2010 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Lakhan S.Tomar, for petitioner Mr. GS Faujdar, Addl. Govt. Counsel/PP, for respondents-State Instant petition has been filed by prisoner against rejection of his application seeking 1st parole U/r 9 of Rajasthan Prisoner's Release on parole Rules, 1958 (“Rules, 1958”) vide order dt.23/03/2010 on the basis of recommendations made by District Parole Committee (respondents) in its meeting held on 11/03/2010. As alleged, petitioner is serving imprisonment on being convicted and sentenced U/S 376, IPC to undergo Seven years' RI vide judgment dt.21/07/2008 passed by Addl. Sess. Judge (Fast Track) NO.1, Jaipur, in Sess. Case- 63/2008 – against which SB Cr Appeal No.751/08; and is under judicial custody for more than 2 years 1 month. After completion of 1/4th of sentence petitioner claiming himself as eligible, applied for first regular parole for twenty days which was placed for consideration before District Parole Committee in its meeting held on 11/03/2010 wherein his case was considered but the Committee rejected his prayer for CW 4829/10 //2// regular parole on the premise of adverse police report as is evident from order dt.23/03/2010 (Ann.1). In reply alongwith report (Ann.R/2) of Superintendent of police (Rural) Jaipur and the Director, Department of Social Welfare (Ann.R/ 3), respondents have not controverted about completion of 1/4th of his sentence, which makes him eligible for grant of regular 1st parole under Rules, 1958 and about any adverse report during his incarceration. In the report of Superintendent of police (Ann.R/2), it has been averred that the fact of repair of house is true – on the ground whereof, he has sought parole and none has expressed about breach of peace if he being released on parole; but because of panchayat elections, he was not recommended for release on parole. While at the same time, in the report dt.26/01/2010 (Ann. R/3),the Department of Social Welfare has recommended him for release on parole. However, in the reply, it has been averred that the Committee has taken note of nature of the crime & adverse report of Superintendent of Police. But curiously enough, no material has been placed on record to show about petitioner's conduct being not good. It was expected from respondents while filing the reply to disclose material on the basis whereof, the authority took decision. Neither CW 4829/10 //3// the advisory committee's report/order where case of petitioner was considered nor reply of respondents discloses any material, which may dis-entitle him for grant of 1st regular parole under Rules, 1958. R.9 of Rules, 1958, clearly manifests that if prisoner who has completed with remission, if any, one fourth of his sentence and subject to good conduct in jail, be considered for first parole for twenty days which includes days of journey to home & back; and even upon his behaviour being good during 1st parole, he can be considered for 2nd parole. Unless he is disqualified as pointed out in R.14, what is to be examined by Committee constituted for purposes under Rules, 1958 is to look into his conduct while in prison which has to be given its due weight-age. It is also not case of respondents that petitioner is facing any other criminal offence /trial. There is no material placed on record by which it can be inferred that if parole is granted, petitioner would again involve in such kind of criminal offences or report of jail authority which may adversely show his antecedents and character while in prison, certainly his case is covered for consideration for release on 1st parole U/r 9 of Rules, 1958. In the opinion of this Court, the facts having been taken note of for refusal of 1st CW 4829/10 //4// parole, in the circumstances of instant case are not legally sustainable. Consequently, writ petition stands allowed and order dt.23/03/2010 (Ann.1) based on recommendation of Committee in its meeting held on 11/03/2010 qua petitioner is hereby quashed. Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur is directed to release petitioner (Kanaram S/o Mangilal) on 1st parole, if not availed of, for twenty days including days of journey to home & back from the date of his release on furnishing his personal bond besides one surety of Rs.10,000/- to the satisfaction of jail authority with the stipulation that he shall surrender himself and return back to the Central Jail, Jaipur, on expiry of twenty days (supra) to be notified by jail authority, and shall maintain peace & tranquility during 1st parole period. In case of failure to surrender by petitioner on stipulated date, the jail authority shall proceed in accordance with law. A copy of this order be sent to the petitioner through jail authority for compliance. No order as to costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p4/ 4829CW2010July7Prol1st.doc