Khemraj vs State, Through Secretary, Home Department and Others

Sandeep Mehta, J

The petitioner convict applied for first parole to the competent authorities, who have rejected his application by recommendations dated 09.07.2019.

The Social Welfare Department recommended release of the petitioner on parole. The Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh submitted an adverse

report observing that if the convict is release on parole, the possibility of dispute erupting with the complainant party cannot be ruled out and that the

convict may also abscond.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the reasons assigned by the District Parole Advisory Committee

for denying parole are absolutely laconic. It is the duty of the police and the administration to ensure maintenance of peace in society. In case, the

convict's conduct leads to breach of peace, his parole can be revoked. The apprehension regarding absconding of the convict can be taken care of by

requiring him to furnish heavy bail bonds.

Thus, the instant parole writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned recommendation dated 09.07.2019 is quashed qua the

convict prisoner Khemraj @ Sonu. It is ordered that the convict petitioner Khemraj @ Sonu S/o Mangilal shall be released on first parole of twenty

days upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 80,000/- and two sound and solvent sureties of Rs. 40,000/- each to the satisfaction of the

Superintendent, Central Jail, Udaipur on the usual terms and conditions. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Udaipur shall be at liberty to impose other

adequate and reasonable conditions to ensure return of the convict to the State custody after availing the parole. The term of parole shall be computed

from the date of his actual release.