CW 2385/08 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No. 2385/2008 Veer Singh Shekhawat Versus State & Ors. Date of Order ::: 13/07/09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi None, 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 petition is directed against order dt.18/03/08 whereby application of petitioner seeking 1st parole U/r 9 of Rajasthan Prisoner's Release on parole Rules, 1958 (“Rules, 1958”) has been rejected on the basis of recommendations made by District Parole Committee (respondents) in its meeting held on 15/03/08. As alleged, petitioner was tried for offences U/Ss 341, 323, 326, & 307, IPC in FIR- 278/99 PS Udaipurwati but convicted and sentenced U/S 307, IPC to undergo Ten years' RI vide judgment dt.24/02/05 passed by Addl. Sess. Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Jhunjhunu in Sess. Case-66/2000, against which he preferred SB Cr. Appeal NO.202/2005, which is pending. After completion of 1/4th of sentence petitioner claiming himself as eligible, applied for first regular parole for twenty CW 2385/08 //2// days which was placed for consideration before District Parole Committee in its meeting held on 28/07/07 19/05/08 wherein his case was considered and since he was not supplied with copy of order, he filed CWP-9270/07 which was disposed of vide order dt.04/01/08 directing the Committee to consider matter afresh within a period of two weeks and pass appropriate order – pursuant to which, the Committee considered his case in its meeting held on 15/03/08 but declined to grant regular parole on the premise of adverse police report as is evident from order dt.18/03/08 (Ann.R.2/1). Notice was issued vide order dt. 27/08/08. In reply, respondents have not controverted about completion of 1/4th of his sentence, which makes him eligible for grant of regular 1st parole under Rules, 1958 and about any adverse report during his incarceration. What has been averred is that the Committee has taken note of nature of the crime, adverse report of Superintendent of Police, depicting reputation of petitioner being not good in the village and there being apprehension to complainant party endangering the life; while in para 5 of the reply, petitioner's conduct is stated to be good in jail. His case was earlier placed for consideration before District Parole CW 2385/08 //3// Advisory committee in meeting held on 28/07/07 & 15/03/09 (Ann.R2/1) but there were adverse reports given by Superintendent of Police, Jhunjhunu against him, that prevailed upon the Committee to reject his prayer for 1st parole. But curiously enough, no material has been placed on record to show about petitioner's conduct being unsatisfactory. 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 reply of respondents disclosed any material, by which it could be inferred about adverse material dis- entitling him from 1st regular parole under Rules, 1958. R.9 of Rules, 1958, clearly manifests 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. Unless he is disqualified as pointed out in R.14, what is to be examined by Committee constituted for purposes under Rules, 1958 is CW 2385/08 //4// to look into his conduct while in prison which has to be given its due weight-age. In instant case, application filed by petitioner for grant of first parole U/r 9 was rejected merely based on a negative police report, taken note of by advisory committee in its meeting held on 15/03/08 conveyed vide order dt.18/03/08 (Ann.R2/1). However, merely on the basis of negative police report which appears to be stereo-typed being prepared without application of mind, the committee has not considered his case despite his conduct being satisfactory while in prison, which was required to be taken note of 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 and behavior of petitioner being satisfactory in the jail while having undergone CW 2385/08 //5// 1/4th of his sentence, and being otherwise eligible, 1st parole in terms of R.9 of Rules, 1958 cannot be denied to him. The facts having been 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 15/03/08 conveyed vide order dt.18/03/08 (Ann.R2/1) qua petitioner is hereby quashed. Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur is directed to release petitioner (Veer Singh Shekhawat) on 1st parole, if not availed of, 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, Jaipur, 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. A copy of this order be sent to the petitioner through jail authority for compliance. No order as to costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p5/2385CW08Jul13Prol1st.doc