DBCW [PAROLE] 685/10 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH D.B. Civil Writ Petition [Parole] No.685/2010 Salim @ Pappu Versus State DATE OF ORDER : 07/07/2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATYA PRAKASH PATHAK HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.S. KOTHARI Mr. Nripendra Sinsinwar, for petitioner Mr. Rajendra Yadav, Govt.Adv., for State *** Convict petitioner has sought first regular parole for a period of 20 days under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958 (to be referred hereinafter as the Parole Rules). It has been contended that petitioner's case is not being considered for the reason that warrant of commitment, sentence undergone by the convict-petitioner in judicial custody & police custody has not been taken into consideration. The legal position cannot be disputed that as a matter of right the accused are entitled to get the benefit of Sec.428 of the Cr.P.C. and in the facts & circumstances of the case, the learned trial Court did not give the benefit of Sec.428 Cr.P.C. to the accused-petitioner. In D.B. Criminal Appeal No.569/2001, Dinesh Kumar Vs. State of Raj., decided on February 23, 2006, copy of which was also sent to all the Superintendents of all the Central Jails situated DBCW [PAROLE] 685/10 [2] in all the Districts in Rajasthan. In the above case, it has been specifically held that convict is entitled to be given the benefit of Sec.428 Cr.P.C. Therefore, we are of the opinion that present convict-petitioner is also entitled to be given the benefit of Sec.428 Cr.P.C. The concerned authorities shall consider the matter for the purpose of granting parole and the period suffered by the convict-petitioner in the judicial custody or police custody. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of with liberty to the convict-petitioner to move afresh before the concerned Jail Authorities for grant of first parole. Copy of this order be sent to all the Superintendents, Central Jail and also to the convict-petitioner along with copy of the order passed in D.B. Criminal Appeal No.569/2001 [Dinesh Kumar Vs. State of Raj.] available in the file. [S.S.KOTHARI], J. [SATYA PRAKASH PATHAK],J. FRBOHRA685DBCW2010 07-07.doc