CW 7292/08 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No. 7292/2008 Vikram alias Vickky Versus State . Date of Order ::: 13/05/09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. LS Tomar, for petitioner Mrs Alka Bhatnagar, Addl. Govt. Counsel, for respondents-State Matter since relates to prayer for regular parole, is finally disposed of at admission stage. Instant letter petition dt.14/07/08 has been sent by petitioner seeking 1st parole U/r 9 of Rajasthan Prisoner's Release on parole Rules, 1958 (“Rules, 1958”), which was declined by respondents-District Parole Committee Jodhpur in its meeting held on 14/01/2008. As alleged, petitioner was convicted U/Ss 363 & 376 IPC and sentenced to undergo Ten years' RI vide judgment dt.19/12/05 passed by Addl. Sess. Judge No.1, Beawar (Ajmer) in Sess. Case No.26/04. On completion of 1/4th of his sentence petitioner claiming himself as eligible, applied for first regular parole for twenty days which was placed for consideration before District Parole Committee in its meeting dt.14/01/08 wherein his case was considered but CW 7292/08 //2// rejected while declining to grant 1st parole on the premise that there was adverse police report. Notice was issued to Government Advocate vide order dt.28/08/08. Reply to letter petition has been filed by respondents, which however, does not disclose as to what was adverse police report having been taken note of by advisory committee while rejecting his application for grant of 1st parole; however, in the reply it has not been controverted about completion of 1/4th of his sentence and so also about adverse report during his incarceration; inasmuch as in para 3 thereof, it has been averred that presently he is a prisoner in Central Jail, Ajmer and as on 25/09/08, has already undergone imprisonment for a period of 4 years & 10 months, which makes him eligible for grant of regular 1st parole under Rules, 1958. What has been averred is that since petitioner failed to give his permanent address, that prevailed upon the Committee to reject his prayer for 1st parole. It was expected from respondents while filing the reply to disclose material on the basis whereof, the authority took decision. Neither the advisory committee's report/order where case of petitioner was considered nor CW 7292/08 //3// reply of respondents disclosed any material on the basis of which it could be inferred about adverse material dis-entitling petitioner to grant of 1st regular parole under Rules, 1958. R.9 of Rules, 1958 clearly contemplates that if prisoner who has completed with remission, if any, one fourth of his sentence and subject to good conduct in jail, be considered for first parole for twenty days which includes days of journey to home & back; and even upon his behaviour being good during 1st parole, he can be considered for 2nd parole. U/r 9 of Parole Rules, 1958, a prisoner is entitled for regular 1st parole for twenty days unless he is disqualified as pointed out in R.14 and what is required to be examined by Committee constituted for purposes under Rules, 1958 is to look into his conduct while in prison which has to be given due its weight- age. It is seen that advisory committees are proceeding mechanically on the basis of police reports without independently applying the mind taking note of R.9 of Rules, 1958 under which application of prisoners is required to be considered for grant of parole based on his conduct while in prison. In instant case, application filed by CW 7292/08 //4// petitioner for grant of first parole U/r 9 was rejected merely based on adverse police report, as taken note of by advisory committee in its meeting held on 14/01/08 and its report too has not been placed on record in order to show as to what was the adverse report which was made as the basis by committee while rejecting his case for first parole; but at the same time, the committee has failed to consider conduct of petitioner while in judicial custody, which was the requirement to be taken note by Committee U/r 9 of Rules, 1958. It is also not case of respondents that petitioner is facing any other criminal offence /trial. There is no material placed on record by which it can be inferred that if parole is granted, petitioner would again involve in such kind of criminal offences or report of jail authority which may adversely show his antecedents and character while in prison, certainly his case is covered for consideration for release on 1st parole U/r 9 of Rules, 1958. In the opinion of this Court, if conduct & behavour of petitioner being satisfactory in the jail while having undergone 1/4th of his sentence, and he is otherwise eligible, 1st parole in terms of R.9 of Rules, 1958 is not to CW 7292/08 //5// be denied and the facts which respondents have taken note of for refusal of 1st parole, in the circumstances of instant case are not legally sustainable. Consequently, writ petition stands allowed and recommendation of Committee in its meeting held on 14/01/08 qua petitioner is hereby quashed. Superintendent, Central Jail, Ajmer is directed to release petitioner (Vikram alias Vikky) on 1st parole for twenty days including days of journey to home & back from the date of his release on furnishing his personal bond besides one surety of Rs.30,000/- to the satisfaction of jail authority with the stipulation that he shall surrender himself and return back to the Central Jail, Ajmer, on expiry of twenty days (supra) to be notified by jail authority, and shall maintain peace & tranquility during 1st parole period. In case of failure to surrender by petitioner on stipulated date, the jail authority shall proceed in accordance with law. No costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p5/7292CW08May13Prol1st.doc