- (1.) WE have heard the learned Amicus Curiae and the learned Government Counsel and have examined the material placed on record and that placed for perusal during the course of submissions.
(2.) THE petitioner-convict has sent this letter petition seeking emergent parole for the purpose of construction of a house. THE petitioner was convicted for the offences under Sections 302 and 449 IPC and sentenced, inter alia, to life imprisonment on 06.02.2009 by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Banswara. As on 20.03.2012, the petitioner has served the sentence for about 3 years 10 months and 1 day, including remissions. THE petitioner was earlier released on emergent parole for a period of 15 days from 11.10.2011 to 25.10.2011 on account of demise of his child. The petitioner has sent the present letter petition with the submissions that he has been selected under BPL Scheme by the State Government and an amount of Rs. 50,000/- has been sanctioned for the purpose of construction of a house but there is no person available in the family to take care of the requisite construction; and such construction being of urgent necessity for shelter of the family, he may be granted parole for a period of 30 days so that he could construct at least one room for the family. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that the emergent parole is granted as per the provisions contained in Rule 10-A of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 ('the Rules of 1958') and no such parole could be granted for the purpose as stated by the petitioner; and is not a case of any damage of the property from any natural calamity. The learned Government Counsel has also referred to the communication as received from the Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, Banswara to the effect that there is an old kuchcha house of the petitioner and now, a house has been sanctioned in the name of the wife of the present petitioner in Mukhyamantri Gramin B.P.L. Aawas Yojna, which is under construction and there was no necessity of any repairs of the house. It is also pointed out that the jail conduct of the petitioner has not been satisfactory, particularly when he remained absent from the jail factory and was awarded the punishment of being deprived of remission for the period of absence on 31.01.2011. Having regard to the circumstances as noticed hereinabove and having regard to the provisions as contained in Rule 10-A ibid., so far the prayer as made in this petition is concerned, in our opinion, it is not a fit case where the prayer of the petitioner for release could be granted under the Rules of 1958. The petition stands rejected, however, without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner in taking recourse to other appropriate remedies at appropriate stage and in accordance with law. ;