1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER SB Civil Writ Petition (Parole) No. 14010/2010 Devendra Prakash Soni Vs The State of Rajasthan & ors 16.12.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI Mr Sudhir Jain - for the petitioner Mr NR Saran, Dy GC – for the State-respondents BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. This writ petition has been filed to claim first regular parole. Petitioner has convicted and sentenced for offence under the provisions of NDPS Act. He has served required length of sentence and is entitled for seeking first parole. The benefit has been denied by the respondents on extraneous considerations more so when Division Bench of this court in the case of Samiullaha Vs State of Rajasthan & ors (RLR 2002 (1) page 41, has held that mere conviction under the provisions of NDPS Act does not debar a person to claim benefit of parole. Learned counsel for respondents submits that case of the petitioner was considered and adverse report has been made by 2 the authorities concerned. If the petitioner is released on parole, he is likely to go in the same business thus he may not be granted benefit of parole. Even the government has taken a policy decision not to permit parole to those who are involved for the offence under NDPS Act. I have considered rival submissions made by learned counsel for parties. The issue as to whether a convict under the offence of NDPS Act is entitled for the benefit of parole or not has already been decided by the Division Bench of this court in the case of Samiullaha (supra) wherein, after a detailed discussion and after considering the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, held that benefit of parole cannot be denied in the garb of section 32-A of the NDPS Act. Therein, State Notification dated 29.4.2000 was also considered. Keeping aforesaid in mind, petitioner cannot be debarred from getting benefit of parole on the ground that he is a convict under the NDPS Act. The question now comes as to whether adverse report should dis-entitle petitioner for seeking benefit of parole? The 3 matter for parole has been put up before the Advisory Board which shows that pursuant to the Notification aforesaid they were of the view that benefit of parole should not be granted to the petitioner. Looking to the aforesaid and for the fact that I am of the opinion that there exist no adversity in the jail conduct of the petitioner, hence, he is entitled to be granted benefit of parole. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. The Superintendent of Central Jail, Jaipur is directed to release petitioner on parole for twenty days from the date of his release on furnishing his personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the jail authority with the stipulation that he shall surrender himself and return back to the Central Jail, Jaipur on expiry of twenty days. He shall maintain peace and tranquillity during period of parole which will include journey period also. In case he fails to surrender on stipulated date, the jail authorities shall proceed in accordance with law. (MN BHANDARI), J. bnsharma