NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA,J. - (1.) learned amicus curiae has submitted four charts, which, in fact, are based on the information supplied by the respondents with their counter affidavit at Annexure-R/1 and R/2. Copy thereof has been supplied to learned Advocate General in court today.
(2.) There are 202 such convicts, who are about and above the age of 60 years in the various prisons of the State. The respondents in Annexure-R/1 filed in their counter affidavit have provided the details of 231 prisoners, out of whom 29 have been released. Of those 29, 6 have been granted permanent parole, 15 were granted bail and 7 have been released on account of either completion of sentence or acquittal and 1 has died. There thus remain only 202 convicts, details of which have been furnished in chart-1, provided by Shri V.R. Bajwa, learned amicus curiae. This chart-1 has been prepared on the basis of particulars furnished by respondents in Annexure-R/2 of their counter affidavit and most of the prisoners, barring a very few, are more than 60 years of age. Shri V.R. Bajwa, learned amicus curiae has invited attention of the Court towards chart-2, which contains the list of 138 prisoners, out of above referred to 202 convicts, who according to him, have been sentenced to life imprisonment.
(3.) In chart-3, 31 persons, out of 138 prisoners referred to above, are in jail for more than 14 years including remission. However, 7 prisoners out of them, as detailed out in chart-4 are those who have completed actual period of 14 years' in incarceration without the remission. Shri V.R. Bajwa, learned amicus curiae has invited attention of the Court towards proviso to Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958 and submitted that according said proviso, the cases of only those convicts, who have been sentenced to life imprisonment shall be liable to be placed before the State Committee for permanent release on parole, who have served 14 years of incarceration excluding remission. He submitted that as per the details which the respondents have furnished, it is not clear whether all these 7 persons have availed the benefit of parole in the past and if yes, on how many occasions, but this issue is no longer res integra, and in fact, has been set at rest by judgement of Full Bench of this Court in Prem Bai vs. State and Anr., D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4382/2014 dated 29.08.2017, in which it has been held that it is not necessary to avail the benefit of first, second or third parole for being released on permanent parole. ;