Bhuvnesh @ Bhulli vs State and Others

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

This parole writ petition has been preferred challenging the impugned order dt.8th/9th June, 2010 passed by District Parole Committee, Karauli whereby application of the Petitioner for grant of emergent parole has been rejected.

The submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that he submitted an application before Jail Superintendent for grant of emergent parole for treatment of his wife, but instead of deciding the said application, it was forwarded to the District Parole Committee, whereas as per Rule 10A of Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 it should have been decided either by Jail Superintendent or Inspector General of Prisons/District Magistrate. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside by this Court.

Learned Counsel for the State did not dispute the legal position of Rule 10A of the Rules, 1958.

In view of the above discussions, the parole writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dt.8th/9th June, 2010 passed by the District Parole Committee qua Petitioner is quashed and set aside and it is directed that the Jail Superintendent, Bharatpur will consider the application of the Petitioner afresh for grant of emergent parole as per Rules.

The needful may be done within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Registry is directed to send a copy of this order for information to the convict Petitioner and to the concerned Jail Superintendent for compliance.