Mangu @ Mangilal vs State of Rajasthan

J.S. Sidhu, J.—Heard. Perused the relevant record as also the photostat copy of the letter dated 14.6.1996 of the District Superintendent of Police (Rural) Kota addressed to the District Magistrate, Kota wherein an adverse report was sent in respect of petitioner Mangu @ Mangilal.

Petitioner Mangu @ Mangilal who, is a life convict and has been at present lodged in District Jail, Alwar has submitted these letter petitions wherein he has submitted that he has already suffered more than one fourth of his sentence, that he has to look after is ailing mother and prayed that respondents be directed to consider his case for releasing on him first parole.

A learned SB of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 1522/1996 vide its order dated 19.9.1996 directed the District Parole Committee, Kota to consider the case of the petitioner in view of he provisions of Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisons Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (in short Parole Rules, 1958) and to decide the same within one month from the date of the receipt of the said order.

It appears that thereafter the Probation Officer Social Welfare Department and the Superintendent, Central Jail, Kota recommended the case of the petitioner for his release on first parole, but the Superintendent of Police (Rural), Kota vide his letter dated 14.6.1996 reported to the District Magistrate, Kota that the petitioner''s elder brother Shri Satyanarauyan can very well look after their old mother Smt. Basanti Bai and opined that as such the petitioner be not released on Parole. The District Parole Committee in its meeting dated 4th October 1996 relying on the report of the Superintendent of Police did not grant first parole to the petitioner.

A careful perusal of the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police (Rural), Kota indicates that he did not find anything adverse against the conduct and behaviour of the petitioner and the only reason given by him that petitioner''s elder brother can look after Smt. Basanti Bai was competently irrelevant for considering the case of the petitioner for granting him parole. Rule 9 of Parole Rules lays down that a prisoner, who has completed with remission, if any, one fourth of his sentence and subject to good conduct in the Jail, may be released on first parole for twenty days including days of journey to home and back. In the instant case admittedly the petitioner has already suffered more than one fourth of his sentence. As per reports of the Superintendent, Central Jail the conduct of the petitioner in the Jail has been found to be good. The Probation Officer also did not find anything adverse against the petitioner and recommended for his release on parole. But it appears that the District Parole Committee, over looked the unambiguous and clear provisions of Rule 9 of Parole Rules and rejected the petitioner''s application for his release on first parole on absolutely irrelevant and extraneous consideration. Moreover a learned S.B. of this Court vide its order dated 19.6.1996 had specifically directed the District Parole Committee to consider petitioner''s case in view of the Provisions of Rule 9 of Parole Rules but the said Committee also ignored the directions given by the SB. In such circumstances in our considered opinion the petitioner is entitled for his release on first parole.

We, therefore, allow these petitions and direct the District Parole Committee, Kota to strictly follow the Provisions of Rule 9 of Parole Rules and to consider petitioner''s case for his release on first parole within a period of one month from the date of the receipt of this order and release him on such terms as it deems fit. A copy of this order be sent to the District Magistrate, Kota for compliance.