CW 10644/08 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10644/08 Hamid Versus State & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 18/05/2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Vinay Pal Yadav, for petitioner Ms. Alka Bhatnagar, Government Advocate, for respondents *** Matter since relates to prayer for regular parole, is finally disposed of at admission stage. Instant petition has been filed by petitioner seeking first parole which has been rejected by District Parole Advisory Committee in its meeting held on 24th June, 2008 [Ann.1]. Petitioner was convicted for offence u/s.376 (2)(g) & 366 IPC vide judgment dt.29th January, 2008 in Sessions Case No.26/08 and sentenced to 10 yrs. RI with fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine has to further undergo for period of six months imprisonment. After the convict-petitioner undergoing 3 yrs. and 11 months of sentence as on 2nd October, 2008 including remission, completed 1/4 of sentence, submitted application for grant of first parole CW 10644/08 [2] and the Advisory Committee after taking report from Superintendent of Police & Jail Authorities rejected his application on 24th June, 2008 on the premise that the accused-petitioner has threatened prosecutrix and his release on parole may give adverse effect. It appears that the police authorities while making recommendations were completely oblivious of the situation that the petitioner was already convicted and undergoing sentence. There was no occasion for the accused-petitioner to threaten the prosecutrix while he is in judicial custody. It appears that the recommendations which was taken note of by the Advisory Committee are absolutely mechanical and they failed to apply their mind in examining individual cases while making their recommendations upon whom legal duty has been casted to consider such applications for grant of parole under R.9 of the Rules. Counsel for respondents submits that apart from his eligibility, he cannot claim parole as a matter of right and it can be considered in the facts of each case which came before Advisory Committee for consideration and also informed this court that in absence of fine of Rs.2,000/- being deposited by petitioner, he is otherwise not entitled for grant of parole. CW 10644/08 [3] It is not the case of the respondent that conduct of the petitioner while in prison is not satisfactory or there is any adverse report of Jail Superintendent which infact is the primary consideration to be taken note of by the committee constituted for the purpose of grant of parole under the Scheme of Rules. It is also not the case of the respondent that nature of conviction of the petitioner u/s.376(2)(g) & 366 IPC debars him from being considered for grant of parole under the Rules. There is no material on record which dis-entitles the petitioner from grant of first parole under the Rules. Consequently, writ petition stands allowed and recommendation of Advisory Committee dt.24/06/08 qua petitioner is hereby quashed. Superintendent, Central Jail, Ajmer is directed to release petitioner (Hamid S/o Ismail @ Ajmat) on 1st parole provided he deposits fine in terms of judgment 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 CW 10644/08 [4] 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. FRBOHRA10644CW08 18-5.doc