- (1.) A letter addressed to this Court by the convict Muse Khan son of Malle Khan, said to be serving the sentence at Open Air Camp of District Jail, Barmer, is treated as a petition seeking 40 days' regular parole in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (for short 'the Rules of 1958' herein after).
(2.) THE petitioner has stated that he sent an application for 40 days' parole to the District Collector, Jaisalmer but his request was rejected on the ground of adverse police report. The petitioner has also stated that he has satisfactorily availed of the liberty of parole on two previous occasions. The respondents have filed a reply wherefrom it appears that as on 27.11.2012, the petitioner had actually served the sentence for about 11 years and 8 days; and inclusive of remission, the total period comes to about 14 years 1 month and 27 days. The petitioner has availed of two paroles in the past and no cause of complaint has been indicated. The respondents have submitted in their reply that the case of the petitioner for grant of parole was considered but the prayer was declined particularly in view of the report of the Superintendent of Police, Jaisalmer to the effect that upon granting parole, there might be adverse effect on the victim party and danger to the petitioner himself.
(3.) IT needs no emphasis that the object of granting parole is to make necessary efforts to rehabilitate a convict-prisoner in the main- stream of society. Maintaining of law and order and prevention of breach of peace are the aspects required to be taken care of by the authorities concerned but on such vague and uncertain suggestions as noted above, the petitioner cannot be denied parole when he is otherwise eligible and entitled therefor. Moreover, in the present case, when the petitioner had satisfactorily availed of two previous paroles; and where the petitioner appears to have been allowed the facility of Open Air Camp, the District Parole Committee was entirely unjustified in rejecting his case for third parole on mere ipse dixit. In our view, the petitioner-convict deserves the requisite relief.;