1 D.B. CRIMINAL PAROLE WRIT PETITION NO.3766/2010 SHARIFA @ SHARIF VS. STATE OF RAJ.& ORS. DATE OF ORDER : 26.5.2010 HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI PRAKASH TATIA HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI SAJJAN SINGH KOTHARI Mr.K.R.Bhati, for the petitioner. Mr.K.R.Bishnoi,Public Prosecutor. ------ Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Sharifa @ Sharif lodged in the Central Jail, Jodhpur challenging the order of the respondents by which his permanent parole application has been rejected by order dated 13.08.2009. As per the reply filed by the learned Public Prosecutor, the petitioner was convicted in Sessions Case No. 47/1989 for the offence under Sections 302 and 224 I.P.C. as well as in Sessions Case No. 42/2001 for the offence under Sections 395, 396 and 460 I.P.C. Petitioner has served the sentence of 20 year 12 months and 25 days and jail remission 2 year 1 month and 5 days, therefore, total sentence of petitioner is 23 year 2 months including the jail remission of two year one month five days. The petitioner was granted parole as under :- (1)First parole from 3.3.2003 to 22.3.2003 - 20 days (2)Second parole from 7.4.04 to 5.8.2004 - 30 days (3)Third parole from 18.9.05 to 27.10.2005 - 40 days (4)Regular Parole from 16.12.06 to 24.1.2007 - 40 days (5)Regular parole from 6.4.08 to 15.5.2008 - 40 days (6)Regular parole from 1.7.09 to 9.8.2009 - 40 days The petitioner's case for grant of parole was recommended by 2 the Superintendent of Police, Pali after obtaining the report about the conduct of the petitioner. The Social Welfare Department also recommended for grant of permanent parole to the petitioner. The learned District Collector, Pali also after taking note of above two reports vide communication i.e. February 2009 recommended for grant of permanent parole. However, the petitioner parole has been rejected only after recording the fact of the case that petitioner was well passing trial for offence under Sections 395, 396, 397 and 460 I.P.C. He committed another offence that the murder of one guard. The concerned authorities did not consider the relevant facts mentioned above that the petitioner has already served the sentence of 23 years 2 months including the jail remission of 2 year 1 month 5 days. He was released on parole for six times for period ranging from 20 days and on four occasions for 40 days and no incident has been noticed any of the authorities. The authorities also ignore the fact that in the opinion of the Superintendent of Police, Social Welfare Department and in the opinion of District Collector it was a fit case for grant of permanent parole. In view of the above reasons, the order impugned is infact passed without considering the material facts of the case and therefore, deserves to be set aside, hence set aside. The petition is allowed and respondents are directed to grant the permanent parole to the petitioner. However, they may impose the appropriate condition in the order of grant of permanent parole to the petitioner. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. [SAJJAN SINGH KOTHARI], J. [PRAKASH TATIA], J. Bharti