- (1.) THE petitioner-convict, undergoing life sentence in the Central Jail at Jodhpur, has sent this letter petition with the submissions that he has served about 18 years of sentence; and that his conduct in the jail is satisfactory and he is rendering services as "convict overseer". THE petitioner has stated the grievance that his prayer for permanent parole has been declined on a baseless report about his being fond of liquor and being of quarrelsome nature. THE petitioner submits that with remissions, he has served for about 23 years and when he is actually in prison for about 18 years, any suggestion about likelihood of his indulging in any offence is entirely baseless. According to the petitioner, there has not been any valid reason for denying him the benefit of permanent parole.
(2.) THE respondents have filed a reply wherefrom it remains an admitted position that as on 31.03.2012, the petitioner had indeed served actual sentence for about 17 years 11 months and 15 days. Thus, as of now, he is behind the bars for over 18 years. Admittedly, with inclusion of the remissions, the total period of serving the sentence by the petitioner goes beyond 23 years. The respondents, however, submit that the matter of the petitioner for grant of permanent parole was sent to the Directorate of Prisons, Rajasthan, Jaipur on 27.04.2011 and the same was considered by the State Parole Committee on 01.02.2012 but looking to the adverse reports, the Committee did not recommend his case for grant of parole; and the State Government, by its order dated 29.02.2012 (Annex.R/2), informed the Jail Authorities about rejection of the prayer of the petitioner for grant of permanent parole. After having examined the material placed on record, we are unable to approve the approach of the concerned authorities towards the case of the present petitioner for grant of permanent parole. No shortcoming in the conduct of the petitioner in jail has been indicated. Some suggestions have been taken into consideration that the petitioner was found guilty of killing his brother; that he was an unmarried person; and that he was taken to drinking and was quarrelsome in nature. Such indications in relation to the petitioner could not have been viewed in isolation and inferences therefrom could not have been drawn without regard to the other essential aspects about his conduct for a long period of about 18 years in jail. It is also expected of the concerned authorities that the essential purpose for granting parole i.e., to rehabilitate a convict and to bring him in the main stream of society is duly kept in view. A balance approach is, obviously, required and prayer for parole cannot be rejected on the basis of some vague suggestions and by drawing uncertain inferences therefrom. In the totality of the circumstances, we deem it expedient that the State Parole Committee should reconsider the case of the petitioner for grant of permanent parole. This appears moreover necessary because in the proceedings of the State Parole Committee dated 01.02.2012, the present petitioner's prayer appears to have been rejected rather cursorily. Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. The proceedings of the State Parole Committee dated 01.02.2012 are modified qua the present petitioner; and the case of the petitioner for grant of permanent parole is restored for reconsideration by the State Parole Committee in its next meeting.
(3.) THE Committee may also requisition latest reports in relation to the petitioner. However, it shall be expected of the Committee to take a final decision in the matter at the earliest and without unnecessary delay, preferably within 30 days from today. It is also made clear that it shall be permissible for the petitioner to approach the Court again, in case any grievance remaining after the decision by the Committee.;