Suraj Mal vs Dir. Gen. (Prisons) and Others

Ajay Rastogi, J.—At joint request, matter is finally disposed of at admission stage.

Instant petition has been filed by petitioner seeking 1st parole Under Rule 9 of Rajasthan Prisoner''s Release on parole Rules, 1958 ("Rules, 1958"), which was declined by respondents vide order dt.17/01/2008.

As alleged, petitioner was convicted & u/s 376(2)(g) IPC and sentenced to undergo Ten years'' RI vide judgment dt.02/08/05 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Cases), Jhalawar in Sess. Case No. 114/97 - against which his appeal is pending before this Court; and presently is a prisoner in Central Jail, Kota.

On completion of 1/4th of his sentence petitioner claiming himself as eligible, applied for first regular parole for twenty days which was placed for consideration before District Parole Committee in its meeting dt.11/01/08 wherein his case at S. No. 34 was considered but rejected while declining to grant 1st parole on the premise that there was adverse police report, as is evident from advisory committee''s report dt.17/01/08 (Ann.1).

Notices were issued on 30/04/08. Reply to instant petition has been filed by respondents, which however, does not disclose as to what was adverse police report having been taken note of by advisory committee while rejecting his application for grant of 1st parole. It was expected from respondents while filing the reply to disclose material on the basis whereof, the authority took decision. Neither the advisory committee''s report/ order (Ann.1) where case of petitioner was considered at S. No. 34, nor reply of respondents disclosed any material on the basis of which it could be inferred about adverse material disentitling petitioner to grant of 1st regular parole under Rules, 1958.

Rule 9 of Rules, 1958, clearly contemplates that if prisoner who has completed with remission, if any, one fourth of his sentence and subject to good conduct in jail, be considered for first parole for twenty days which includes days of journey to home & back; and even upon his behaviour being good during 1st parole, he can be considered for 2nd parole.

This Court can take judicial notice that matters are coming forward time & again where advisory committees constituted to consider cases for grant of parole under Rules, 1958 are proceeding mechanically on the basis of police reports without applying their mind independently taking note of R.9 of Rules, 1958.

According to the scheme of Rules, 1958 the committee constituted for the purpose are under obligation to consider conduct of prisoner while he is in jail and report of Superintendent of Jail about his conduct has to be given its due weightage and at the same time, for grant of second parole, in addition to his conduct in jail, his behaviour during first parole is also to be taken note of at the time of taking decision for 2nd parole, which is normally not taken note of by advisory committees for the purpose Under Rule 9 of Rules, 1958.

In instant case, application filed by petitioner for grant of first parole Under Rule 9 was rejected merely based on adverse police report, as taken note of by advisory committee in its report (Ann.1) dt.17/01/08 where case of petitioner was considered at S. No. 34, that too has not been placed on record in order to show as to what was the adverse report which was made as the basis by committee while rejecting his case for first parole; but at the same time, the committee has failed to consider conduct of petitioner while in judicial custody, which was the requirement to be taken note by Committee Under Rule 9 of Rules, 1958.

It is also not case of respondents that petitioner is facing any other criminal offence/ trial. There is no material placed on record by which it can be inferred that if parole is granted, petitioner would again involve in such kind of criminal offences; or report of jail authority which may adversely show his antecedents and character while in prison, certainly his case is covered for consideration for release on 1st parole Under Rule 9 of Rules, 1958. In the opinion of this Court, if conduct & behaviour of petitioner being satisfactory in the jail while having undergone 1/4th of his sentence, and he is otherwise eligible, 1st parole in terms of Rule 9 of Rules, 1958 is not to be denied and the facts which respondents have taken note of for refusal of 1st parole, in the facts & circumstances of instant case are not legally sustainable.

Consequently, writ petition stands allowed and communication dt. 17/01/08 (Ann.1) qua petitioner is hereby quashed. Superintendent, Central Jail, Kota is directed to release petitioner (Suraj Mal) on 1st parole for twenty days including days of journey to home & back from the date of his release on furnishing his personal bond besides one surety of Rs. 30,000/- to the satisfaction of jail authority with the stipulation that he shall surrender himself and return back to the Central Jail, Kota, on expiry of twenty days (supra) to be notified by jail authority, and shall maintain peace & tranquility during 1st parole period. In case of failure to surrender by petitioner on stipulated date, the jail authority shall proceed in accordance with law. No order as to costs.