1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER D.B. Writ Petition (Parole) No.12798/2008 (Anoop Singh Beniwal Versus State of Rajasthan & Others) Date of Order :: 9th January, 2009 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GUMAN SINGH Ms. Shefali Sharma for the petitioner Mr. B.K. Sharma, Public Prosecutor for the State of Rajasthan Admit. 2. At the request of learned counsel for both the parties, the parole writ petition was heard finally and is being disposed of. 3. The convict petitioner has preferred this parole writ petition for grant of first parole of 20 days under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958. 4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has already completed 1/4th of his total sentence awarded by the trial court against him and his conduct during jail custody was also good, therefore, he was entitled for grant of first parole of 20 days. However, his application was deferred on the ground that a report from the concerned Superintendent of Police has not been 2 received, whereas it was not a relevant factor as per Rule 9, therefore, either the petitioner may be released on first parole of 20 days or respondents be directed to consider the case of petitioner for first parole in the next meeting positively. 5. The learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner is fully eligible for consideration of his case for first parole of 20 days as he has already completed 1/4th of his sentence awarded by the trial court and his conduct during custody in jail was also good, but his application was deferred as the reports of concerned Superintendent of Police as well as the Social Welfare Officer were not received. He further submits that the petitioner belongs to Haryana and ordinarily the convict who belongs to out of State cannot claim as a matter of right for parole, therefore, as and when their report is received, the case of petitioner will be considered in accordance with the rules. 6. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. There is no dispute in the present case that petitioner is eligible for consideration of his first parole of 20 days as per Parole Rules of 1958. His 3 case was deferred only for the reason that the report from Social Welfare Officer as well as the Superintendent of Police was not received. The learned Counsel for the State has assured that case of petitioner will be considered definitely in the next meeting and he will direct the concerned Parole Committee or the concerned Officer to see that report from both the places is received positively before the next meeting. 7. On the basis of assurance given by the learned Counsel for the State, we are of the view that it will not be appropriate for us to consider the case of petitioner at this stage on merits. 8. In view of above, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for first parole positively in the next meeting. It will be open for the petitioner to approach this Court again in case he feels aggrieved with the order of concerned authority. 9. A copy of this order may be sent for compliance to Inspector General of Prisons, Rajasthan, Jaipur. (GUMAN SINGH), J. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK