1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition (Parole) No.1169/2008 {Ramhetar Versus The State of Rajasthan & Others} Date of Order :: 19th September, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. D.S. Dhariwal for the petitioner Mr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, Additional Government Counsel for the respondents BY THE COURT: Admit. Mr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, Additional Government Counsel appears for the respondents. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner has preferred this writ application for grant of second parole for 30 days on the ground that he wants to go at his home to see his family and to rehabilitate himself in the society. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC to seven years rigorous imprisonment vide judgment dated 27th September, 2003. The petitioner was granted first parole during the period from 20th October, 2006 to 8th November, 2006. As per reply filed on behalf of the respondents before this Court on 25th February, 2 2008, the petitioner had already served a sentence of imprisonment for five years, four months and one day as on 25th February, 2008, therefore, at present he has already served a sentence of imprisonment for about six years. The learned counsel for the State admits that during custody of the petitioner in the jail, his behaviour was good, which has been verified by Jail Superintendent. He further submits that conduct of the petitioner during the period of first parole was also good as no complaint was found against him. The advisory committee rejected the parole application on the basis of adverse report given by Superintendent of Police. The Probation Officer also recommended the case of the petitioner for parole. 4. After considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I find that the conduct of the petitioner during first parole and during custody in jail was satisfactory, as contended by learned counsel for the State. The Probation Officer has also recommended the case of the petitioner for grant of parole. The report of Superintendent of Police is not based on any evidence whatsoever. In these circumstances, I allow this writ application for grant of second 3 parole filed on behalf of the petitioner. 5. Consequently the writ petition is allowed and it is directed that petitioner be released on second parole under Rule 9 of the Parole Rules for a period of 30 days provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Superintendent of the concerned Jail. The parole period will include the journey period also. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK