-1- CWP 14967/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14967 of 2010. Phool Chand son of Shri Ratan Lal VERSUS State of Rajasthan and Others Date of Order :::: 13.12.2010. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalip Singh Hon'ble Dr. Justice Meena V. Gomber Mr. Sumer Singh, Counsel for the Petitioner Mrs. Rekha Madnani, Dy.Govt. Counsel for respondents **** By the Court :- This petition has been filed by the petitioner- Phool Chand for release on second regular parole for 30-days, as his application was rejected by the Advisory Committee vide Annexure-1 dated 07.07.2010. Reply has been filed by the respondents, along with the documents, Annexure R/1 nominal roll, Annexure-R/2 letter of the Superintendent of Police, Jhalawar and Annexure-R/3 letter of the Social Welfare Officer, Jhalawar. We find that there are contradictions in the aforesaid documents. While Annexure R/3 dated 29.03.2010 issued by the Social Welfare Officer shows that the petitioner has undergone 10-years-9-months-&-16-days and nominal roll shows that he has actually undergone 13-years-5-months plus a period of one year and 8-months during trial. The aforesaid figures do not match. -2- CWP 14967/2010 Similarly, the report of the Social Welfare Officer, Annexure R/3 states that "बंदȣ Ʈारा पूव[ एक बार भी पेरोल पर नहȣं आया है|”, whereas as per the letter of the Superintendent of Police, Annexure R/2 dated 06.07.2010, it is stated in Para 3 that during the period of parole of 20-days the conduct of the petitioner was not good. There is, therefore, inherent contradictions as undoubtedly as per the jail record the petitioner has applied for being released on second regular parole, which has been declined to him under the order dated 07.07.2010. We would, accordingly, direct the respondents to get the fresh report from the Social Welfare Officer and the Superintendent of Police with regard to the petitioner. On receipt of the aforesaid reports the case of the petitioner be reconsidered in the light of the fresh material. The aforesaid exercise be completed within 60-days from today. Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. As per letter Annexure R/2 of the Superintendent of Police the conduct of the petitioner while he was on first regular parole for 20-days was reported to be unsatisfactorily. No specific instance has been pointed out by the Superintendent of Police in the aforesaid letter dated 06.07.2010. Assuming that the conduct was not satisfactory, it was the duty of the concerned Police Station within whose -3- CWP 14967/2010 jurisdiction the petitioner remained during first regular parole to have informed the Superintendent of Police about such unsatisfactorily conduct while on parole and Superintendent of Police in turn ought to have informed the jail authorities accordingly. More particularly, when the petitioner in this case is in the Open Jail. While disposing of this petition, we direct that the respondents will take appropriate action in this behalf so that reports from concerned Police Station and the Superintendent of Police are sent to the jail authorities after the prisoners return from parole within 30-days of the surrender of the prisoner about their conduct and behaviour while on parole, which should be kept on record for consideration while deciding cases of subsequent parole etc. A copy of this order be sent to the Director General of Prisoner as well as Director General of Police for compliance. (Dr. Meena V. Gomber) J. (Dalip Singh) J. Ashok/