// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN D.B. Civil Writ (Parole) Petition No.13747/2008 {Jai Kishan Vs. State of Rajasthan} Date of Order ::: 17.01.2009 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Hon'ble Mr. Justice Guman Singh By Post Shri B.K. Sharma, PP, for the State #### By the Court:- Admit. At the request of the learned counsel for the State, the writ petition was heard finally and is being disposed of. The convict-petitioner Jai Kishan @ Ghasu has preferred this Parole Writ Application for grant of first parole of 20 days contending therein that he has already completed 5 years of his sentence of imprisonment, which includes the remission period, but his application is not being considered on the ground that he has not completed 1/4th of his sentence of imprisonment; whereas in case the period of 22 months imprisonment, which is the period for which he remained in jail during trial of the case, is counted in the period of his sentence of imprisonment served then it completes the period // 2 // of 1/4th of his sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial court, therefore, his application may be directed to be considered or may be allowed by this Court directly. A notice to show cause was given to the respondent and, in response thereto, the respondent has filed its reply to the writ petition wherein it has been contended that the petitioner has not completed 1/4th of his sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial court. It has further been explained that even if the period of 22 months, which is the period for which he remained in jail during trial of the case, is added in the period of his total sentence served, then also it does not become the period of five years of imprisonment, meaning thereby the petitioner cannot be said to have completed 1/4th of his sentence of imprisonment as required under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958. It is further contended that the conduct of the petitioner during his custody in jail was also not satisfactory. After considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the State and the contents of the writ application, we are satisfied that both the conditions, as required by Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958, are not fulfilled in the case and the petitioner is not entitled his case to // 3 // be considered for grant of first parole of 20 days. Consequently, we do not find any merit in this writ petition for parole and the same is accordingly dismissed. (Guman Singh) J. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//