Ashok Kumar vs State of Raj. and Others

N.L. Tibrewal, V.J.

petitioner is seeking parole on the ground of his mother being seriously ill. According to averments made in the writ petition, his mother is suffering from 1 HD Angia with hypertension and his condition is reported to be critical. It is alleged that the father of the petitioner had also expired, as such, there is none else to look after his mother. It has been given out that the petitioner had approached to this Court earlier in S.B. Writ Petition No. 5257/90 and the same was dismissed on March 21, 991 with the direction to the Jail authorities to consider his application for grant of parole. It has been averred that sub-sequently he moved an application on April 3,1991 before the jail authorities and he was informed by the jail authorities that his application has been referred to the District Magistrate, Jaipur as provided under the Parole Rules. The petitioner has stated that no further action has been taken till now and the condition of his mother is deteriorating day by day as such, he should be granted parole for a period of two months. The petitioner has filed affidavit in-support of his averments.

In reply, the non-petitioners have stated that the application of the petitioner is under consideration of the District Magistrate. There is no allegation in the reply that the petitioner''s behaviour or conduct is not good, so as to disentitle him from the benefit of parole.

It may be stated that Rule 10A provides provisions for parole in emergent cases, involving humanitarian considerations. The illness of the mother is one of the grounds on which such parole can be granted. The petitioner had moved the application for grant of parole as back as in March, 1991. As per Rule 21, such application should be considered by the District Magistrate expeditiously and he should communicate his recommendation to the concerned committee within 4 days from the receipt of the application for grant of parole, such application is also required quick disposal by the State Government in case the committee is not functioning.

As the application of petitioner has not been considered promptly as required under Rule 21 of the Rules, I think it just and proper to allow this application. It is, therefore, ordered that the petitioner be released on parole for a period of two weeks provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand only) with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 5000/- (Five thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the Jail Supdt. with the stipulation he shall return to the prison on the expiry of the period of two weeks from the date of release and also for the observance of the following conditions:

a) The convict shall remain under the supervision and authority of the probation officer during the period of parole. He shall obey all the instructions of the said officer issued to him either verbally or in writing regarding his residence, movement, conduct, etc.

b) If in the opinion of the State Govt., he is found to have committed a breach of the above mentioned conditions, the State Government may, after the person concerned has been given an opportunity to represent his case before the District Magistrate, revoke the parole and direct his recommitment to the person to serve the rest of the sentence.