- (1.) INSTANT petition has been filed by prisoner against rejection of his application seeking 2nd parole U/r 9 of Rajasthan Prisoner's Release on parole Rules, 1958 ("Rules, 1958") on the basis of recommendations made by District Parole Committee (respondents) in its meeting dt.9/12/2011 conveyed vide order dt.15/12/2011.
(2.) AS alleged, petitioner was convicted and sentenced U/Ss 376, 366, 363, 365, 344 IPC to undergo Ten years' RI vide judgment dt. 21/05/2008 passed by Addl. Sess. Judge/Special Judge (Women Atrocities & Dowry Cases) Jaipur against which criminal appeal (No.314/2009) is pending before the High Court. Petitioner is in judicial custody since 01/08/2006 and has undergone six years & 11 days RI including remission as on 25/02/2012 and after completion of 1/4th of sentence, the petitioner claiming himself as eligible, had applied for 1st parole, for which he filed CWP-7626/2009, which was disposed of vide order dt.07/01/2010 granting him 1st regular parole for Twenty days and pursuant to which, he availed of 1st regular parole from 08/03/2010 to 27/03/2010 and reported back to the jail authority as is evident from his nominal roll (Ann.R/1) placed on record alongwith reply in which the aforesaid facts have been admitted by respondents. After about 16 months of having availed of 1st parole, the petitioner applied for grant of 2nd parole on 02/11/2011 for Thirty days which was placed for consideration before District Parole Committee in its meeting held on 09/12/2011 wherein his case was considered but the Committee rejected his prayer for 2nd regular parole on the premise of adverse police report. In reply, the respondents have not controverted about completion of 1/4th of his sentence, which makes him eligible for grant of 2nd parole under Rules, 1958 and about any adverse report regarding his behaviour during period of 1st parole or thereafter during his incarceration. It has been averred that the Committee has taken note of nature of the crime, adverse report of Dy. Commissioner of Police (East) who has not recommended for his release since none has taken responsibility of the prisoner during parole except his wife but that does not reflect about petitioner's behaviour/conduct being unsatisfactory during period of his incarceration or 1st parole availed by him.
(3.) R.9 of Rules, 1958, clearly contemplates that if a prisoner on having completed with remission if any, one fourth of his sentence and subject to good conduct in jail, be released on first parole for twenty days which includes days of journey to home & back; and he can be considered for 2nd parole for Thirty days provided behaviour of prisoner has been good during the 1st parole, and as per R.10 of Parole Rules, no second & subsequent release on parole shall be made unless eleven months have elapsed from the date of expiry of period of release on parole immediately preceding. Thus, prisoner will be eligible to apply for 2nd parole after 11 months having elapsed from the date of period of release on parole immediately preceding and unless disqualified as pointed out in R.14; and what is to be examined by the Committee constituted under Rules, 1958 is to look into his behaviour during 1st parole and conduct while in prison and that has to be given its due weightage. In the instant case, as taken note of above, after 11 months having elapsed from the date of expiry of period of release on 1st parole which was availed of by petitioner for Twenty days from 08/03/2010 to 27/03/2010, application was filed by petitioner for grant of 2nd parole U/r 9. The same was rejected merely on the premise that the Dy. Commissioner of Police has not recommended for his release on 2nd parole and that apart, one mobile was recovered on 27/02/2010 from the prisoner, for which he was imposed with penalty of jail punishment on 27/02/2010 whereas there is a report of Department of Social Welfare placed on record as Ann.R/3 based on the statement of neighbours of the prisoner that there is no likelihood of any endangering the life or loss if prisoner is released on parole and that apart, prosecutrix who was niece of the prisoner has already got married. Contrarily there is a positive report of Superintendent of Jail as is evident from his nominal roll (Ann.R/1) that conduct of petitioner during judicial custody is satisfactory. ;