1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER D.B. Civil Writ Petition (Parole) No.13598/2008 (Ramnarayan Singh Versus The State of Rajasthan & Others) Date of Order :: 6th January, 2009 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GUMAN SINGH Mr. Anshuman Saxena for the petitioner Mr. Jainendra Jain, Public Prosecutor for the State of Rajasthan Admit. 2. At the request of the 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 second parole of 30 days and being aggrieved with the proceedings of the District Parole Advisory committee dated 14th October, 2008, whereby his application for second parole was rejected on the basis of adverse report given by the Superintendent of Police. 4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he was granted first parole of 20 days from 30th June, 2007 to 19th July, 2007 and his conduct during first parole period was very good. He further submits that he again applied for second parole, but his 2 request was rejected by the District Parole Advisory Committee only on the basis of adverse report given by Superintendent of Police, which was based on no evidence or material whatsoever. He contended that as per Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958, the petitioner was eligible for grant of parole and District Parole Advisory Committee committed an illegality in rejecting his application. He, therefore, prayed that his application may be allowed and he may be released on second parole of 30 days. 5. The respondents in their written-reply have admitted that petitioner has already undergone imprisonment of 9 years, 6 months and 13 days as on 6th December, 2008 and his application was rejected by District Parole Advisory Committee only on the basis of adverse report given by Superintendent of Police. This fact has not been disputed by the respondents that conduct of the petitioner during his parole period and custody in jail was good. 6. After considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and other facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that petitioner was fully eligible for grant of second parole and District Parole Advisory 3 Committee was not right in rejecting his application only on the basis of adverse police report which was given without any material or evidence whatsoever. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the State was unable to refer any material or evidence to support the adverse report of the Superintendent of Police given against the petitioner. As per Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958, the requirement for grant of parole is that the convict must have completed 1/4th sentence of his imprisonment and his conduct during jail should be good. He has also completed more than 11 months after expiry of first parole period. 7. In view of above discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The proceeding of the District Parole Advisory Committee dated 14th October, 2008 so far as it relates to the convict-petitioner, the same is set-aside. It is directed that convict-petitioner will be released on second parole of 30 days on his furnishing personal bond and one surety in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand only) to the satisfaction of the Superintendent of the concerned Jail. (GUMAN SINGH), J. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK