BIRBAL MAHARIA Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the say of the petitioner is that he is in jail since 1992 and has undergone more than nine years sentence, yet he has not been granted parole. It is stated that the petitioner had moved applications to the Jail Authorities for the grant of parole on 12-8-1997, 17-3-1998, 6-11-1998 and 31-7-99, but in vain whereas under the law he is entitled for the grant of first parole. It is further stated that looking to the good conduct of the petitioner, he is in open jail and, therefore, there could not be any cause to refuse the parole to the petitioner.

(2.) In the reply, the respondents have stated that the grounds mentioned in the applications of the petitioner were found to be false and the parole has been refused on the basis of adverse reports of the S.P. and the Social Welfare Officer.

(3.) We had heard arguments on 24-5-2000, and the order was reserved. While perusing the record, we noticed that the matter of parole was considered by the District Parole Advisory Committee on 12-10-1999, which was attended by five persons, some of whom were not the members of the Committee, therefore in order to bring this fact to the notice of the respondents, we listed the matter for re-hearing.