D.B. CRIMINAL PAROLE WRIT PETITION NO.4468/2010 Kalu Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 25.5.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH TATIA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAJJAN SINGH KOTHARI Mr. Kaluram Bhati, for the petitioner. Mr. A.R. Nikub, Public Prosecutor Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. The petitioner has been convicted for offence under Sections 302 and 447 of I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, further to undergo three months' simple imprisonment and further a fine of Rs.500/- has been imposed on the petitioner and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment by the judgment dated 6.2.1996 passed by the Special Judge, EC Act Cases, Jodhpur. As per the reply submitted by the Jail Department, the petitioner has already undergone total sentence of 20 years, 09 months and 23 days as on 10.5.2010 (including the jail remission of 02 years, 07 months and 15 days and State remission of two years). The petitioner was released on first parole from 3.5.2003 to 22.5.2003 for a period of 20 days. Second parole from 5.4.2007 to 4.5.2007 for 30 days and third parole from 29.5.2009 to 7.7.2009 for 40 days. The petitioner was eligible for consideration of his case for release on permanent parole, however, the petitioner's case was considered and rejected by order dated 31.3.2010 (Annex.R/4). Before the rejection of petitioner's case, reports were obtained from District Magistrate, Jodhpur, Superintendent of Police, District Jodhpur (City) and from the Social Welfare Department. Copy of these reports are placed on record by the State alongwith the reply. We have perused the reports. The District Magistrate, Jodhpur in his report dated 10.9.2009 has reported that accused-Kalu Ram and deceased Jai Singh both were of the same caste and the families of both the persons above are living in Golasani and the deceased's brother has objected to the release of the petitioner on parole. On this ground the District Magistrate, Jodhpur has recommended not to release the petitioner on permanent parole. The Superintendent of Police, District Jodhpur (City) his report dated10.7.2009 has taken all the grounds which can be taken in any case i.e. the release of the petitioner on permanent parole will prove dangerous to the family of victim, the release of petitioner on parole will be dangerous to the petitioner himself, there will be sharp reaction from the persons of society if petitioner is released as he is convict for the offence of murder, the release of petitioner may cause unrest and then it is stated that the petitioner is a convict of offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and as the family of victim and convict are living nearby, therefore, there is objection of victims brother for his release on permanent parole. However, the Social Welfare Department has recommended for the petitioner's release on permanent parole. The facts which have not been duly taken care of by the respondent Authorities are that the petitioner has already undergone sentence of 20 years, 09 months and 23 days including the remissions, referred above. The petitioner's release on parole on three occasions and his surrender before the Jail Authorities after completion of parole period and there is also no allegation that during these release there was any sort of untoward incident of any nature. There is no report adverse to the petitioner about his conduct when he was in custody. The District Magistrate, Jodhpur has considered the objection of the brother of victim as a decisive factor for the rejection of petitioner's case. The Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur has given apprehensions of all sorts, which can be apprehension but it appears that the Superintendent of Police also did not examine the petitioner's case from that angle that earlier the petitioner availed parole thrice without there being any sort of untoward happening. The Superintendent of Police has not reported about the conduct of petitioner when he was out from jail and was living at the place where the victims family are residing. Be that as it may, the respondents have not considered the petitioner's case properly to give effect to the provisions of law framed for the release on the convicts on permanent parole. For the aforesaid reasons, we direct the competent authority to pass appropriate order for the release on petitioner on permanent parole, however, the said Authority may put appropriate conditions for the order. With these observations, this parole writ petition is disposed of. (SAJJAN SINGH KOTHARI), J. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. Sanjay/