- (1.) A letter addressed to this Court by the convict-prisoner for 10 years' imprisonment ? Inder Raj Bhadu s/o Shri Ram Lal Bhadu, at present at Central Jail, Sriganganagar is treated as petition for writ seeking 20 days parole in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (herein after 'the Rules of 1958'). It is stated that the petitioner belongs to poor family, having wife, two children and old age parents and in the facts and circumstances parole for 20 days is necessary.
(2.) AS per reply to the petition filed on behalf of respondents, the District Level Parole Advisory Committee, Sriganganagar in its meeting dated 15th November 2011 considered and rejected the claim of the petitinoer for availing regular parole for 20 days by relying upon report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Sriganganagar as well as on the report by ASsistant Director, Social Justice and Empowerment Department, Sriganganagar. AS per that report, the petitioner committed attempt to rape with a minor girl of Meghwal community and the rival group of petitioner reside there and therefore, apprehension is made for some unwarranted incident in the event of release of the convict-prisoner on parole. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner-convict has already served out imprisonment of 04 years and 16 days as on 20th December 2011. Main reason given for denying him regular parole is the apprehension shown by the Superintendent of Police and Social Justice Department, Sriganganagar and also apprehension of breach of peace and tranquility. I do not want to make any comment on the apprehension disclosed, however, in view of object & spirit of the Rules of 1958, such apprehension is not valid one. During the course of parole, a convict-prisoner is supposed to have complete security through State Government and as such, if the apprehension as disclosed by the Superintendent of Police and the Social Justice Department, Sriganganagar is having any foundation then he is required to provide necessary security to the convict-petitioner while availing the parole. Parole to a convict-prisoner is a statutory right and that can not be denied for any unseen apprehension. Having considered all the facts of the case, I am satisfied that the reason given for denying parole are not sufficient. It is well settled that parole is required to keep a convict-prisoner in regular stream of the society and for that purpose of rehabilitation, in my considered opinion, such a valuable right can not be denied for far-fetched apprehension and for minor reasons. In such circumstances, I deem it appropriate to accept this petition. Accordingly, this letter petition for parole is allowed. The convict-prionser ? Inder Raj Bhadu s/o Shri Ram Lal Bhadu aforesaid be released on regular parole for a period of 20 days, provided he furnishes personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) along with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand) each, to the satisfaction of Superintendent, Central Jail, Sriganganagar, who shall impose adequate conditions as per Rules of 1958 to secure surrender of the convict-prisoner immediately after completion of the period of parole. It is made clear that the parole term shall be counted from the date of actual release of the convict- prisoner. ;