- (1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.7.2012 passed by the District Parole Advisory Committee, Jaipur whereby the Advisory Committee has rejected the petitioner's application for first regular parole under the Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was convicted by judgment dated 20.11.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jaipur City for offences under Sections 411, 413 IPC and under Sections 3/25 and 14/25 of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972; he was sentenced to life imprisonment. So far, the petitioner has completed twelve years and one month of sentence including remission. Since he has completed more than 1/4th of his sentence, since he was eligible for regular first parole under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958, he applied for the same. However, the District Parole Advisory Committee has rejected his case in its meeting held on 6.7.2012, as reflected in the order dated 16.7.2012. Hence, this petition before this court.
(2.) MR . Anshuman Saxena, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised the following contentions before this court: firstly, the Advisory Committee has ignored the report of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur which was in the petitioner's favour. Instead, it has relied upon the reports filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, and by the Deputy Director (City), Social Justice and Empowerment Department, Jaipur which are against him.
(3.) SECONDLY , the petitioner's conduct within the Jail is satisfactory. Since he has reformed himself, therefore, the benefit of first regular parole should be given to him. Thirdly, it was not necessary for the petitioner to give any reason for seeking a regular parole. But nonetheless, he had sought the parole on the ground that his daughter is yet to be married. In case the regular parole of twenty days were granted to him, he would settle the marriage while being on furlough. Therefore, the petitioner had given a valid reason for seeking a regular parole, although such a reason is not required under the law. This also shows the petitioner's bonafide. Hence, the order dated 16.7.2012 needs to be interfered with.;