- (1.) THIS petition has been registered on a letter received from the prisoner Bajrang Singh, who is presently lodged in Central Jail at Ajmer, stating grievance against denial of 20 day's parole.
(2.) IT appears from the material placed on record that earlier, the petitioner sent a letter petition that was registered as Parole Petition No.5257/2011 and was decided by the order dated 02.09.2011 wherein, this Court took note of the fact that the parole plea of the petitioner was declined essentially with reference to his mental and physical condition but, neither any medical report was available nor the details of ailment were mentioned. Having regard to the circumstances, this Court directed reconsideration of the matter of the petitioner-prisoner while observing, inter alia, as under:- "We are, therefore, not satisfied with the reasoning of the parole committee for want of details on the ailment of the convict. If the District Parole Committee was of the opinion to reject the application on the ground of ailment suffered by the petitioner/convict, then in that event detailed order indicating the nature of ailment and treatment given so far should have been mentioned in the order itself to justify the conclusion. That having not been done, we are inclined to allow the writ petition and while setting aside of the order impugned in this writ petition as referred supra remand the case to the District Parole Committee with a direction to first obtain the medical report of Bajrang Singh convict from medical board and depending upon the medical opinion then decide his parole application and pass appropriate orders thereon. Since, it concerns the mental/ physical health of the convict, and therefore, priority should be given to such cases and his matter be referred forthwith to the Medical Board and then order be passed in accordance with law keeping in view the requirement of Parole Rules." It appears from the submission as made in the reply by the respondents that after passing of the aforesaid order dated 02.09.2011, the case of the petitioner was considered in the meeting of the District Parole Committee, Nagaur on 14.12.2011 but his prayer for parole was declined with the following observations :- ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMItED]... After considering the matter in the present petition for parole, on 16.05.2012, this Court directed the respondents to obtain a specific report from the concerned hospital on the present medical condition of the petitioner. Thereafter, on 31.05.2012, this Court called for a report from the Superintendent of the Central Jail at Ajmer on the jail conduct and general behaviour of the petitioner. The Superintendent of the Central Jail, Ajmer, in his communication dated 01.06.2012 as made to the Government Counsel, has stated, merely with reference to the report as received from the Chief Medical Officer of the Jail Hospital, that the petitioner was not suffering from any mental disorder and there was no doubt about his fair mental condition. The report as made by the Superintendent of the Central Jail falls short of the requirement of our order where it was expected that he would report on the present jail conduct and general behaviour of the petitioner. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, we do not consider it proper to keep this petition pending any further in this Court; and it appears in the interest of justice that the respondents be directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner-prisoner with reference to the present medical reports and for that matter, the concerned Jail Superintendent shall also make the report to the concerned authorities about the present jail conduct and general behaviour of the petitioner-prisoner. It needs hardly any reminder that the parole plea of a prisoner cannot be declined on mere ipse dixit; and so far maintaining of law and order is concerned, the aspect is required to be taken care of by the authorities concerned. It shall be expected of the concerned authorities, dealing with the parole plea of the petitioner, to keep in mind such observations, as already made by this Court in the past in several cases, and as made hereinbefore and then, to pass a reasonably speaking order.
(3.) FURTHER, as the matter of the present petitioner is being sent for reconsideration for the second time by this Court, it shall be expected of the authorities concerned to take a decision objectively and expeditiously; and in any case, on or before 15.08.2012. It is also made clear that in case of any grievance remaining after such decision by the concerned authorities, the petitioner shall be free to move this Court again in accordance with law. Subject to the above observations and requirements, this parole petition stands disposed of. ;