{1} DB CW Petition (Parole) No. 10579/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR O R D E R D.B. Civil Writ Petition (Parole) No. 10579/2010 Babu Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others. DATE OF ORDER: 04.08.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENA V. GOMBER Mr. Rohan Jain, for the petitioner. Mr. J.R. Bijarnia, Government Counsel, for the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the impugned order dated 16.03.2010 passed by District Parole Advisory Committee. 2. The convict-petitioner has preferred this writ petition for grant of first parole of 20 days. 3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the conduct of the petitioner in jail is satisfactory, which is clear from the impugned order. He further submitted that the petitioner was earlier granted emergent parole and his conduct during parole period was satisfactory, therefore, the petitioner may be granted {2} DB CW Petition (Parole) No. 10579/2010 first parole of 20 days. 4. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of reasons assigned by District Parole Advisory Committee for rejecting his application. 5. No doubt that the petitioner can be released on parole under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners(Release on Parole) Rules, 1958, but as per Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Prisoners(Release on Parole) Rules, 1958, a convict cannot claim parole as a matter of right. One of the reasons assigned by the District Parole Advisory Committee for rejecting the application of the petitioner is that from the report of Superintendent of Police it is borne out that charge against the petitioner was that he committed rape with a minor girl of six months of age. 6. We have already taken a view in D. B. Civil Writ Petition (Parole) No. 8006/2010 titled Budh Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others decided on 23.07.2010 that the gravity of offence is a relevant factor to be considered at the time of considering the parole request of a convict person. Looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that District Parole Advisory Committee was right in rejecting the {3} DB CW Petition (Parole) No. 10579/2010 application of the petitioner and in passing the impugned order. 7. We find no merit in the writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed summarily. (MEENA V. GOMBER),J. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. Manoj Item No.3.