RAJ @ AAKASH SAINI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner assailing rejection of his first parole application by the respondents on the premise that hisjail conduct was unsatisfactory.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner through 'Jitsi Meet'. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Additional Government Advocate has placed on record the report dated 30.04.2020 issued by the Superintendent Central Jail, Ajmer stating therein that the petitioner has attended the workshop (Udhyogshala) from January, 2020 to March It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Additional Government Advocate has placed on record the report dated 30.04.2020 issued by the Superintendent Central Jail, Ajmer stating therein that the petitioner has attended the workshop (Udhyogshala) from January, 2020 to March, 2020 and his conduct has been satisfactory. He submits that rejection of the request of the petitioner for first regular parole is not sustainable in view of the report dated 16.11.2018 (Annexure-R-3) issued by the Superintendent of Police, Ajmer. He prays for release of the petitioner on parole in terms of Section 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958. LearnedAdditionalGovernmentAdvocate opposedthe prayer.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.