1 D.B.CIVIL WRIT (PAROLE) PETITION NO.7316/2009. Deendayal. VERSUS The State of Rajasthan. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER D.B.CIVIL WRIT (PAROLE) PETITION NO.7316/2009. Deendayal. VERSUS The State of Rajasthan. 27.10.2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DALIP SINGH HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.S.CHAUDHARI By post. Mrs.Rekha Madnani, Deputy Government Counsel. ***** This is a letter petition sent by the petitioner- prisoner Deendayal @ Deenu son of Shravan Lal, resident of Sabji Mandi, Nayapura, Kota with the prayer that he may be released on first regular parole of 20 days as his petition under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958 was rejected by the Advisory Committee. This petition came to be filed on 15.06.2009 and the notices were ordered to be issued and the reply to the same has been filed by the respondents on 22.10.2009. In the meanwhile, the application which was submitted by the prisoner-petitioner before the authorities concerned has come to be decided in the meeting of the District Advisory Committee, Kota held on 26.08.2009. The committee rejected the application inter alia on the ground that the Superintendent of Police, Kota and the Superintendent, Central Jail, Kota, 2 D.B.CIVIL WRIT (PAROLE) PETITION NO.7316/2009. Deendayal. VERSUS The State of Rajasthan. where the prisoner-petitioner is lodged, have given adverse reports, against the petitioner. In the reply also the same grounds have been taken which find mention in the report of the Advisory Committee. So far as the report of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Kota is concerned, from the nominal roll it appears that upto 18.07.2009 in the column No.22 regarding the conduct of the prisoner-petitioner, it has been mentioned that at present the conduct of the prisoner is satisfactory. As against the details of any adverse report against the prisoner-petitioner is concerned, it has specifically mentioned – 'Nil'. We, therefore, fail to understand as on what account the Superintendent, Central Jail, Kota has not consented to the prisoner-petitioner being released on parole or any specific reason has been pointed out in the reply. As far as the report of the Superintendent of Police, Kota is concerned, all that has been stated is that the prisoner-petitioner is a resident of District Dholpur and there is a possibility that he may abscond. From the record, we find that the address given by the prisoner-petitioner is not of Dholpur but of “Sabji Mandi, Nayapura, Kota”. The conviction of the prisoner-petitioner was also by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Kota. In the facts and circumstances, therefore, we do not find any nexus between the report of the 3 D.B.CIVIL WRIT (PAROLE) PETITION NO.7316/2009. Deendayal. VERSUS The State of Rajasthan. Superintendent of Police, Kota and the application given by the petitioner about the prisoner-petitioner being resident of Dholpur. On the contrary, the petitioner has not mentioned that he would be proceeding to Dholpur after being released on first regular parole. The petitioner at the time of the alleged incident was running a shop in Nayapura, Kota. In column No.4 of the nominal roll, it has specifically been mentioned that the occupation of the prisoner- petitioner prior to his conviction – Dukandari (Business). So far as the Social Welfare Officer is concerned, he has given his consent to the release of the petitioner on first regular parole. In view of the reports which have been taken into consideration - of Superintendent of Police, Kota; the Social Welfare Officer; and Superintendent, Central Jail and in the facts and circumstances, keeping in view the object behind the grant of parole to the prisoners, we consider it a fit case to grant the benefit of first regular parole to the prisoner-petitioner for 20 days. Consequently, we allow this petition and direct the Superintendent, Central Jail, Kota to immediately release the petitioner viz., Deendayal @ Deenu son of Shravan Lal, (presently confined in Central Jail, Kota) on first regular parole for a period of 20 days, which shall commence from the date of his release, upon his furnishing a surety in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees 4 D.B.CIVIL WRIT (PAROLE) PETITION NO.7316/2009. Deendayal. VERSUS The State of Rajasthan. Fifty Thousand Only) along with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Kota on usual terms and conditions, as may be determined by him. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Kota shall also fix a date for the surrender of the petitioner before the jail authorities. Consequently, the writ petition stands allowed with the aforesaid directions. (K.S.CHAUDHARI),J. (DALIP SINGH),J. Solanki DS, Jr.P.A.