Vimla Devi vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Narendra Kumar Jain-I, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

At the request of learned Counsel for the parties, writ petition was heard and the same is being disposed off finally.

Convict-Petitioner has preferred this writ petition for grant of first parole of 20 days.

A notice to show cause was given and in response thereto, the Respondents have filed their reply where in it has been admitted by them that conduct of the Petitioner during jail custody was satisfactory and her application was rejected by District Parole Advisory Committee on the basis of adverse report of concerned Superintendent of Police.

I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and examined impugned order dated 26.04.2011 passed by District Magistrate, Jhunjhunu on the basis of report of District Parole Advisory Committee.

As per nominal roll (Annexure-R/1) annexed with the reply to writ petition, it is clear that the Petitioner was eligible to be released on parole and her conduct during jail custody was satisfactory. From the impugned order it appears that her application was rejected by the Committee only on the basis of adverse report of concerned Superintendent of Police, which is based on no evidence.

After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to allow this parole writ petition and the same is hereby allowed and it is directed that convict-Petitioner namely Vimla Devi W/o. Rohitash be released on first parole of 20 days on her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousands) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Jail Superintendent. It will be open for the concerned Jail Superintendent to put any other condition, as per rules, to secure the presence of the Petitioner.

A copy of this order be sent for information to convict-Petitioner and for necessary action to concerned Jail Superintendent.