- (1.) ON being convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, the petitioner is serving life term sentence at Central Jail, Udaipur. He has already served sentence for a term of seven years and nine months including the jail and State remission as on 30.6.2012. He also availed first regular parole and an emergent parole as per the provisions of Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1958'). An application was submitted by him to the District Magistrate, Banswara for grant of 30 days regular parole and that was placed before the District Parole Advisory Committee, Banswara in its meeting dated 15.6.2012. The competent committee denied for the regular parole by relying upon the remarks made by the Superintendent of Police, Banswara under a communication dated 13.6.2012. ON refusal for grant of regular parole by the District Parole Advisory Committee, Banswara, the petitioner submitted a letter to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court which is registered as a petition for writ.
(2.) IN response to a notice issued by this Court on 10.7.2012, a reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents. A copy of the communication dated 13.6.2012 addressed to the District Magistrate, Banswara by the Superintendent of Police, Banswara is placed on record as Anx.R/1. As per the remarks contained in the communication dated 13.6.2012, Shri Shambhulal; Harji; Nanalal; Chetandas and Shankarlal objected for grant of parole to the petitioner as enmity yet exists between the family of the accused and the victims. It also reveals from the communication dated 13.6.2012 that Shri Shambhulal; Harji; Nanalal; Chetandas and Shankarlal were witnesses in the case in which the petitioner was convicted. We have examined all relevant facts and circumstances. As already stated, the petitioner has already availed first parole and en emergent parole in accordance with the Rules of 1958. From perusal of the remarks made by the Superintendent of Police, Banswara it does not reveal that any unwarranted incident took place when the petitioner was availing the paroles aforesaid. The enmity between the family of the accused and the victims may be existing and that is quite obvious, but that cannot be a reason to deny a statutory parole without having emergent and satisfactory reason that the release of the prisoner will cause a big problem of law and order and the prisoner himself shall be a prime instrumentality in that. The minor apprehensions of causing little injury to law and order is required to be checked by the administration and law maintaining agencies. The minor apprehensions as pointed out by the Superintendent of Police in the communication dated 13.6.2012 are quite minor and those can very well be met and addressed by the district administration including the district police. The basic object of the Rules of 1958 i.e. of making efforts to bring a convict prisoner in regular stream of the society and further to rehabilitate him and his family cannot be frustrated for minor reasons. For the reasons given above, we are of the considered opinion that the second parole has been denied to the petitioner without having adequate reasons. Accordingly, this petition for writ is allowed. The respondents are directed to pass an appropriate order in accordance with the Rules of 1958 granting regular second parole for a term of 30 days to the petitioner. ;