1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition (Parole) No.75/2008 {Mahaveer Versus The State of Rajasthan & Others} Date of Order :: 18th September, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Lakhan Singh Tomar for the petitioner Mr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, Additional Government Counsel for the respondents BY THE COURT: Admit. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner has filed this writ application for grant of first regular parole for 20 days under the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Section 376 (2) IPC to 10 years rigorous imprisonment by the trial court vide judgment dated 26th September, 2003 and on the date of filing of the writ petition i.e. 3rd January, 2008, the petitioner had already remained in jail for about four years and nine months. He submitted an application for grant of parole to Advisory Committee, who rejected his 2 application vide order dated 19th November, 2007 only on the basis of adverse report given by Superintendent of Police. He contended that petitioner has already completed 1/4th of his total sentence of imprisonment and his conduct in the jail was satisfactory, which is clear from the impugned order dated 19th November, 2007 passed by the Advisory committee itself. He, therefore, contended that the petitioner may be released on regular first parole for 20 days. 4. Learned Government Advocate submitted that the petitioner has remained in jail and has completed 1/4th of his total sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial court and his conduct during custody was also good as per report of Jail Superintendent, as mentioned in the impugned order dated 19th November, 2007. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order in the light of their submissions. As per Rule 9 of the Parole Rules of 1958, there are two conditions to make a person eligible for grant of parole i.e. he must complete 1/4th of his total sentence of imprisonment and his conduct in the jail should be good. So far as both the conditions are 3 concerned, the petitioner has fulfilled the same, therefore, he was eligible to make an application for grant of parole, which was considered by the Advisory Committee, but in view of the adverse report of Superintendent of Police, the Advisory Committee rejected the application of the petitioner. The Probation Officer also gave report in favour of the petitioner and contended that there is no chances of any breach of peace in case the petitioner is released on parole. The main consideration for considering the application for parole is that his conduct during his custody in the jail should be good. The Jail Superintendent has made his report that conduct of the petitioner was good during his custody in the jail. No doubt that report of Superintendent of Police is also relevant and material while considering the application for parole but the same cannot be said to be conclusive evidence while considering the application for parole. The Advisory Committee rejected the application of the petitioner only on the basis of adverse report of the Superintendent of Police, which cannot be said to be justified or in accordance with the provisions of parole rules. In my view, the 4 Advisory Committee committed an illegality in rejecting the application of the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 6. Consequently the writ petition is allowed and it is directed that petitioner be released on regular first parole under Rule 9 of the Parole Rules for a period of 20 days provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Superintendent of the concerned Central Jail. The parole period of 20 days will include the journey period also. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK