TATIA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. 2. Though this petition has been filed by petitioner Abdul Khan alone whose request for his release prematurely under the provisions of Rajasthan Prisoners (Shortening of Sentence) Rules, 1958 (for short 'the Rules of 1958') was rejected by the State Government vide order dated 19. 3. 2008, but after going through the contents of Annex. 2, the recommendations sent by the Advisory Board to the State Government on the matter of release of convicts namely, Mukesh s/o Roop Chand, Roop Chand s/o Gokul Chand, Ramesh s/o Roop Chand, Amariya @ Amra s/o Baja Ram, Kailash s/o Nanag Ram and Abdul Khan s/o Subhan Khan, we are of the view that the entire matter is required to be considered by this Bench in the interest of justice. 3. The prayer of shortening of sentence under the Rules of 2006 of all above convicts has been rejected by order dated 19. 3. 2008. We would like to quote the recommendations made by the Advisory Board for each of the accused as well as the reason given for rejection of their prayer for shortening of sentence passed by the State Government, which are as under :- ....Vernacular Text Ommited....
(2.) ....Vernacular Text Ommited.... 4. We may specifically point out that Mukesh was 10th fail student and while undergoing the sentence, he passed B. A. (Arts ). He completed computer course, house repairing course and fan repairing course during his sentence period. He worked all allotted work in jail with devotion and with full rigor as found by the Advisory Board. In the year 2003, it appears that he was given appreciation letter also. During sentence period, he undertook Vipasyana Sadhna, Yoga, Art of Living, Osho Meditation etc. He also worked during gazetted holidays. All the facts recorded above were noticed by the Advisory Board and brought to the knowledge of the State Government in writing by sending the recommendation which is duly signed by not less than a person like Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur as well as Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur along with non-government member. For this, the State Government could notice (from where not disclosed in the order) only that said Mukesh s/o Roop Chand did not do the work in the work shop and he deliberately remained absent from the work shop. His working was not exemplary or good. 5. Almost same is position of the case of convict Roop Chand. Convict Roop Chand entered in prison when he was student of Class 10th (failed ). He did his first year of Bachelor's degree course. He also worked hard in jail and with devotion. His work was duly appreciated by giving appreciation of 10 days. He took part in all activities as convict Mukesh. 6. It appears that the same is the position for all cases and there is total non-application of mind on the part of the State Government in all matters which were under consideration for taking decision for so many convicts. If it is not so, then what was the material before the State Government for holding so, so as to contradict the report of the Advisory Board and if the report of the Advisory Board was wrong about the convicts, then it is more serious matter and it cast serious doubt on the working of the Advisory Board itself. Whether in such circumstances, the State Government was not under obligation to contradict the facts mentioned in the report of Advisory Board and it was the duty of the Government to give true facts in the order so the convict could know that the decision for liberty of a person has been taken not by 'cut paste' or 'copy paste' method (a more opted method in place of 'mechanical method') and the order has been passed after application of mind. 7. So far as the petitioner is concerned, for him, the Advisory Board was of the view that he gave his all support for all allotted work during his sentence period. After considering all material available with Advisory Board, the Advisory Board was of the opinion that the convict deserves to be released prematurely. For the petitioner, the State Government in its impugned order dated 19. 3. 2008 mentioned that the accused along with six other persons committed murder of one Kumbha Ram and he did not do his all allotted work. In fact, he voluntarily absented from the work. His work during sentence was not good. The fact mentioned in the order of the State Government runs contrary to the facts mentioned in the report of the Advisory Board. As noticed above, the reason for rejection of premature release for all the accused is same- ....Vernacular Text Ommited.... (Copy paste method ). 8. The State Government framed the Rules of 1958 as back as in the year 1958 and constituted the Advisory Board as provided by Rule 3 of the Rules of 1958. Rules of 1958 provide for eligibility for consideration of prisoners by the Advisory Board and also provides that who shall not be eligible for consideration of the Advisory Board as per Rule 9. The power is given to the State Government to accept or reject the prayer of the convict by Rule 12 which provides that on receipt of the proceedings of Advisory Board and other relevant papers, the Government shall order release of prisoner in cases for which, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, it considers that the prisoner may be released without any danger to the society. 9. It has been held by this Court in Naresh Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2001 DNJ 15 (Raj.) (DB) that Rule 12 makes it clear that normally the Government should accept the recommendations of the Advisory Board in the matters of release of prisoner. The only circumstance in which the State Govt. can decline to order the premature release is where the release of the prisoner is likely to endanger the society. 10. Though it is not necessary but yet we would like to mention here that the convicts are behind bars because of committing offence by them and because of the reason that they were found guilty by Court of law and because of the reason that the sentence has been awarded by the Court of law. The convicts may have committed serious crime and also heinous crime and because of this reason only, they are behind bars, yet the Rules of 1958 have been framed by the State Government purposefully, to give benefit to the convicts who have been sentenced imprisonment by the Court of law. The commission of offence itself cannot be a ground for refusal of the benefit under the Rules of 1958 unless by Rule, it has been denied to the convict because of its nature of offence. Once a person is eligible for consideration for the benefit of shortening of sentence under the Rules of 1958 and a decision is required to be taken by the Government may it be in its executive power and may be vested with discretionary power, yet an eligible person gets right for consideration of his prayer for release of shortening of sentence and his prayer cannot be denied arbitrarily. Here in the present case, we found that the relief has been denied not only arbitrarily but by considering the facts which were not relevant and ignoring the facts which are relevant. The two facts cannot go together one high appreciation of the convict during his sentence period and another- ....Vernacular Text Ommited.... 11. We may again reiterate that Rule 12 gives wide power to the State Government to pass the order for release of the accused and the State Government has ample power to refuse the relief under the Rules of 1958 in case, the State Government is of the view that in case, prisoner is released, then it will result in danger to the society. In that situation, the State Government has ample jurisdiction to reject a prayer of any convict under the Rules of 1958 but it appears from the order passed by the State Government dated 19. 3. 2008 that the order for all the prisoners have been passed absolutely mechanically and in fact, the Rules of 1958 have been given burial. 12. We are constrained to observe that it is the duty of the State Government to save the society and citizens from the danger but at the same time, it is the duty of the State Government to see that a convict, who may have committed a heinous crime, may settle in the society. The punishment to the convicts has its own aims and objects which includes reform of the convict, the guilty person. The punishment to the convict is not only to teach lesson to others but is a lesson to the convict himself. 13. We would like to sent a copy of this order to the State Government through Principle Home Secretary for consideration that how the matters under the Rules of 2006 are being decided by the officers of the State. We expect that the State Government shall issue appropriate guidelines for taking a decision for release of the convicts under the Rules of 2006 keeping in mind that it is the duty of the State to save the citizens of the society from any sort of danger and also keeping in mind that the reformative efforts may not be dealt in such a manner as has been dealt with by the State Officials while dealing with the convicts referred in the order dated 19. 3. 2008. 14. In view of the above reasons, we set aside the entire order dated 19. 3. 2008 with respect to all the convicts and direct the State Government to reconsider the matter carefully and pass appropriate orders of all these convicts afresh. 15. We may further observe that we are not proposing to decide any matter ourselves for release of the convicts while setting aside the order dated 19. 3. 2008 because of the reason that the State Government may again look into the recommendations of the Advisory Board and may look into all material facts and if there is a mistake committed by the Advisory Board while recommending the release of the convicts, the State Government may pass appropriate order based on correct facts. 16. The State Government is directed to take decision within a period of 30 days from the receipt of the copy of this order as the petitioner is about to complete his sentence in a very short period and in case, the petitioner is entitled to any benefit of freedom under the Rules of 2006, then he should not be detained for a single more day after the decision of the State Government. 17. All matters of all the convicts should be decided within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 18. With these observations, this parole petition is allowed. 19. Copy of this order be sent to the Principle Secretary Home forthwith. Copy also be sent to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur. .;