RAKESH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioner, a life convict, through his mother Smt. Kamla Devi, aggrieved by an order dated 23.12.19 issued by the State Government, whereby pursuant to the recommendations made by the State Level Parole Committee, an application preferred on his behalf seeking release on permanent parole under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (for short "the Rules of 1958"), stands rejected.

(2.) The application has been rejected on the ground that on being released on interim bail vide order dated 10.8.09 for a period of 15 days, the petitioner did not surrender after expiry of the period of interim bail and was later arrested on 28.8.09, under Section 109 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the petitioner was released on first parole for a period of 20 days from 9.4.13 to 28.4.13 but again he did not surrender after expiry of the parole period and absconded. He was arrested for commission of an offence under Section 379 IPC and lodged in prison on 30.5.13. That apart, the State Parole Advisory Committee observed that the petitioner has been convicted for an offence of abducting and committing rape on a lady, German national, and thus, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, he is not entitled to be released on permanent parole.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that on account of breach of the condition during the first parole, the petitioner could not avail second and third parole under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958 but, he was released on parole for 7 days and thereafter for 15 days under Rule 18 (ii) of the Rules of 1958 and on both the occasions, he surrendered peacefully on expiry of the period of parole and thus, the breach of condition on his part while availing the first parole should not come in his way for grant of permanent parole under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958. Learned counsel submitted that even the person who does not avail the first, second and third parole under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958, is eligible to be considered for release on permanent parole and thus, merely because the petitioner was found guilty of breach of the conditions of the parole granted under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958, he cannot be denied permanent parole. In this regard, learned counsel has relied upon a Bench decision of this Court in Suraj Giri & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors,2010 2 CrLR 1567. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has already served more than 14 years of actual sentence without remission and more than 17 years with remission and his conduct during the stay in the jail being satisfactory, he is entitled to be released on permanent parole under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958.