1 DBCW(PAROLE) NO.7463/2010 Ram Sahay Meena vs. State IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R D.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION(PAROLE) NO.7463/2010 Ram Sahay Meena Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. DATE OF ORDER ::: JULY 26, 2010 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE MEENA V.GOMBER Mr.Lakhan Singh Tomar, for the petitioner Mr.J.R.Bijarnia, Addl.G.A. BY THE COURT: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The convict-petitioner has preferred this parole writ petition for grant of second parole of 30 days under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958. 3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that application of the petitioner for second parole of 30 days was considered by the District Parole Advisory Committee, Tonk in its meeting dated 12th March, 2010 and Jail Superintendent, Ajmer and Assistant Director, Social Welfare Department both recommended case of the petitioner for grant of parole. However, 2 DBCW(PAROLE) NO.7463/2010 Ram Sahay Meena vs. State recommendation of Superintendent of Police, Tonk had not been received, therefore, a decision was taken that in case Superintendent of Police, Tonk recommends the case of petitioner for grant of parole then he may be released on second parole of 30 days on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each. He contended that when the Jail Superintendent and Social Welfare Officer both recommended the case of petitioner for grant of parole then application of petitioner should have been accepted instead of passing a conditional order depending upon recommendation of Superintendent of Police, Tonk. He, therefore, contended that the impugned order passed by the District Parole Advisory Committee be modified and petitioner be released on second parole of 30 days. 4. A notice to show cause was issued and in response thereto the respondents have filed their reply to the writ petition. Respondents have annexed copy of report of Superintendent of Police, Tonk dated 5th April, 2010, wherein it is mentioned that during first parole period the convict had 3 DBCW(PAROLE) NO.7463/2010 Ram Sahay Meena vs. State given threatening to the victim, therefore, his case for grant of parole has not been recommended. Learned Additional Government Advocate, therefore, contended that petitioner is not entitled for second parole and writ petition be dismissed. 5. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The case of petitioner for grant of second parole was considered by the Parole Committee in its meeting dated 12th March, 2010 and the impugned order dated 22nd March, 2010 was passed. Recommendation of Superintendent of Police, Tonk had not been received by the committee. Report of Superintendent of Police, Tonk is dated 5th April, 2010, which was passed after considering the case of the petitioner in its meeting dated 12th March, 2010. Since the Jail Superintendent recommended the case of petitioner for parole and now Superintendent of Police, Tonk had not recommended the case of petitioner for grant of parole, therefore, we think it fit and proper to direct the Parole Committee to reconsider the case of petitioner for grant of second parole. 4 DBCW(PAROLE) NO.7463/2010 Ram Sahay Meena vs. State 6. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 22nd March, 2010 qua petitioner is set aside and District Parole Advisory Committee, Tonk is directed to reconsider the case of petitioner for grant of second parole of 30 days afresh in the next meeting or within a period of three months, whichever is earlier positively. 7. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the District Magistrate, Tonk for compliance. (Meena V.Gomber) J. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. BKS/