{1} DBCW (Parole) Nos. 7315/2009 & 8908/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR O R D E R (1) D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION (PAROLE) NO. 7315/2009 SANTOSH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & (2) D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION (PAROLE) NO. 8908/2009 SANTOSH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. Date: 09.10.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALIP SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI Mr. Vinay Pal Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Rekha Madnani, Addl. Govt. Counsel for State. **** D.B. Civil Writ Petition (Parole) No. 7315/2009 has been filed by the petitioner before this Court and was sent by post and was registered accordingly. Subsequently, D.B. Civil Writ Petition (Parole) No. 8908/2009 has also been filed by the petitioner through his Counsel. In both these petitions, the relief claimed is for being released on second regular parole, which was refused by the authorities concerned under their order dated 31.03.2009, whereby while considering the case of the petitioner at S.No. 4, the members of the Committee recorded that his application cannot be allowed in view of the fact that the Superintendent of Police has given adverse report against the petitioner. {2} DBCW (Parole) Nos. 7315/2009 & 8908/2009 After the notices were issued to the learned counsel for the respondents, the respondents submitted their reply and along with the reply, the letter of the Superintendent of Police dated 09.02.2009 as well as the letter of the Deputy Director, Social Welfare Department dated 11.02.2009 have also been placed on record. When we heard the matter earlier, we found from the record, particularly, the letter of the Superintendent of Police, Ajmer dated 09.02.2009 that inter-alia the Superintendent of Police, Ajmer has stated that while the petitioner is undergoing the sentence after his conviction under Section 302 IPC, there are six other cases also pending against the petitioner in different Courts of law. This Court with a view to ascertain the veracity of the above facts, directed the respondents to place on record the details of the aforesaid cases. The first direction was issued on 18.09.2009 and it was reiterated on 30.09.2009. In response to the earlier order dated 18.09.2009, the learned counsel for the State produced the letter dated 25.09.2009 of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ajmer, wherein again it was mentioned that six cases are pending against the petitioner. Since we were not satisfied and no details had been given, we directed the Superintendent of Police, Ajmer to send a responsible officer before {3} DBCW (Parole) Nos. 7315/2009 & 8908/2009 this Court along with the list of the cases. In pursuance of the direction of this Court dated 08.10.2009, Shri Hari Prasad, Superintendent of Police, Ajmer is present in person along with Shri Rajesh Verma, SHO, Police Station Nasirabad, District Ajmer and a letter dated 07.10.2009 has also been placed on record. As per the aforesaid letter dated 07.10.2009, the details of six cases in which the accused petitioner was tried, has been given. It is now admitted before this Court that all these six cases have been decided and except in Sessions Case No. 150/2002, in which the accused- petitioner has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and except in Case No. 100/2000, wherein the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Sections 341, 323 IPC vide judgment dated 28.07.2001, in the remaining cases including Case No. 165/1998 for the offence under Section 395 IPC, the accused-petitioner has been acquitted of the charges. In view of the above, we find that the reasons which were given in the impugned order dated 31.03.2009 of pendency of six cases against the petitioner, are of no foundation and the facts pertaining to the same are not correct. It has also been brought to our notice that the Deputy Director, Social Welfare Department while expressing his opinion in favour of release of the petitioner on parole, had opined that a condition be {4} DBCW (Parole) Nos. 7315/2009 & 8908/2009 put while releasing the petitioner on second parole that he would give his attendance every day in Police Station Nasirabad, District Ajmer. This condition finds place in para 7 of the order dated 11.02.2009 of the Deputy Director, Social Welfare Department. We find that the report which was sent by the office of the Superintendent of Police, Ajmer appears to have been sent in routine manner without verification of the true facts. The responsible officers must discharge their duties with sincerity and submit true facts and position when called upon to submit their report before the Advisory Committee. We deliberately refrain from expressing our opinion on the report which was sent by the Superintendent of Police, Ajmer in the present case. In the facts and taking into account the totality of the circumstances including the fact that earlier the petitioner has already been given the benefit of first regular parole by the order of this Court for a period of 20 days in accordance with Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958, we are inclined to accept these petitions and direct that the petitioner be released on second regular parole for a period of 30 days. Consequently, we allow both the writ petitions, directing the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ajmer to immediately release petitioner {5} DBCW (Parole) Nos. 7315/2009 & 8908/2009 Santosh S/o Mangal Das, R/o Harijan Basti, Paltan Bazar, Ajmer (presently confined in Central Jail, Ajmer) on second regular parole for a period of 30 days, which shall commence from the date of his release, upon furnishing his surety for a sum of Rs. 50,000 (Rs. Fifty thousand only) along with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ajmer, on usual terms and conditions, as determined by him. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Ajmer shall also fix a date for his surrender before the jail authorities. D.B. Civil Writ Petition (Parole) Nos. 7315/2009 and 8908/2009 are, accordingly, allowed and disposed of. (K.S. CHAUDHARI),J. (DALIP SINGH), J. /KKC/