- (1.) A letter has been sent by Vilayat Khan, a convict prisoner, incarcerated in Central Jail, Sri Ganganagar. The same has been treated as a letter petition. Vide order dated 10.01.2012, this Court had appointed Miss. Anju Chouhan as Amicus Curiae to argue the petition on behalf of Vilayat Khan.
(2.) Miss. Chouhan has contended that although the petitioner was eligible for being released on his first parole of twenty days, his case has been rejected vide order dated 15.11.2011 ostensibly on the ground that the Superintendent of Police and the Social Welfare Officer hadgiven adverse reports against him. According to her, the report given by the Superintendent of Police has been accepted in toto. Moreover, the report given by the Social Welfare Officer is an incorrect one. According to the report, the petitioner has been convicted for offence under Section 304-B IPC and sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment. However, in fact, the petitioner has been convicted for offence under Section 306 IPC and not under Section 304-B IPC. Therefore, relying upon a wrong report, the District Advisory Committee has rejected the petitioner's case for grant of parole. Lastly, that the Committee has not bothered to see the jail record. A bare perusal of the jail record would have revealed the fact that the petitioner was convicted for offence under Section 306 IPC, and not under Section 304-B IPC. Therefore, the order dated 15.11.2011 suffers from non-application of mind.
(3.) On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has contended that according to the police report, since the petitioner allegedly abated suicide of his wife, an animosity continues to exist between the families. Considering the animosity, the police had recommended that the petitioner should not be released on parole. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 15.11.2011.;