[1] DBCWP(PAROLE)NO.5319/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR O R D E R D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION (PAROLE) NO. 5319/2010 RAMAVTAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. DATE OF ORDER: 14.07.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENA V. GOMBER Mr. Lakhan Singh Tomar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Sanjeev Mehla, Public Prosecutor for State. **** Heard learned counsel for the parties. The convict-petitioner has preferred this parole writ petition for grant of first parole of 20 days under the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). It is contended that petitioner has already served 1/4th of his sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial Court and his conduct in jail has also been satisfactory, therefore, he fulfills all the requirements as per Rule 9 of the Rules, but his application has been rejected by the District Advisory Committee only on the basis of adverse report given by the Superintendent of Police, for which there is no basis at all. A notice to show cause was given to the respondents and in response thereto they have filed their reply to writ petition, wherein they [2] DBCWP(PAROLE)NO.5319/2010 have admitted that petitioner has already completed 1/4th of his sentence of imprisonment and his conduct in jail has been satisfactory. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also examined the impugned order dated 12.03.2010 (Annexure-1) passed by the District Parole Advisory Committee, whereby prayer of petitioner to grant him first parole of 20 days has been rejected. As per Rule 9 of the Rules, there are only two requirements; first is that a convict should complete 1/4th of his total sentence and second is that his conduct during custody in jail should be satisfactory. Both the requirements are fulfilled in the present case. The District Advisory Committee has rejected the prayer of petitioner only on the basis of adverse report, for which no material has been place on record to substantiate it. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that application of petitioner has wrongly been rejected by the District Advisory Committee and the impugned order qua petitioner is liable to be quashed. Consequently, the parole writ petition of petitioner is allowed. The impugned order dated 12.03.2010 (Annexure-1) qua petitioner is quashed and it is directed that petitioner Ramavtar S/o Govinda be released on first parole [3] DBCWP(PAROLE)NO.5319/2010 of 20 days on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Superintendent of the concerned jail. It will be open for the Superintendent of the concerned jail to put any other condition while releasing the petitioner on parole to secure his presence. (MEENA V. GOMBER),J. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. /KKC/