1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER D.B. Civil Writ Petition (Parole) No.11001/2008 (Anwar Ali Versus State of Rajasthan & Others) Date of Order :: 15th January, 2009 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GUMAN SINGH Mr. Lakhan Singh Tomar for the petitioner Mr. B.K. Sharma, Deputy Government Counsel for the State of Rajasthan Admit. 2. At the request of learned counsel for both the parties, the writ petition was heard finally and is being disposed of. 3. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for grant of first parole of 20 days contending therein that he has already completed 1/4th of his sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial court and his conduct during his custody in jail was also satisfactory, therefore, he moved an application for grant of parole before the competent authority under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958, but the same has been rejected by the parole committee only on the basis of adverse report of the Superintendent of Police, which 2 was not based on any material or evidence whatsoever, therefore, his writ petition is liable to be allowed. 4. A notice to show cause was issued to the respondents and in response thereof, they have filed their written-reply to the writ petition, wherein they have admitted that both the requirements, as required by Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958, are satisfied in the present case and petitioner is eligible to be released on parole. 5. The contention of learned counsel for the State is that his application was rejected only on the basis of adverse report of the Superintendent of Police. 6. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. Both the conditions, as required by Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958, are satisfied in the present case. The petitioner has already completed 1/4th of his sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial court and his conduct during his custody in jail was also satisfactory. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the State was unable to justify the adverse report of the Superintendent of Police, which was made basis for rejection of his parole application. After 3 considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the petitioner should have been released on first parole of 20 days. 6. Consequently the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 15th September, 2008 so far as it relates to the petitioner is concerned, the same is set-aside and it is directed that petitioner be released on first parole of 20 days on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction to the Superintendent of the concerned Jail. The Superintendent of the concerned Jail will also impose necessary conditions as per Rules before release of the petitioner. (GUMAN SINGH), J. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK