BHAWANI SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant parole writ petition has been filed by the convict-petitioner Bhawani Singh S/o Mahaveer Singh assailing the adverse recommendations dtd. 23/4/2021 drawn by the District Parole Advisory Committee, Churu in its meeting dtd. 20/4/2021, whereby the application for second parole filed by the petitioner was dismissed. It is relevant to mention here that the fact regarding the convict petitioner having availed first parole of 20 days satisfactorily is admitted. It is also admitted that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 9 years. It is relevant to mention here that the District Parole Advisory Committee, Churu rejected the parole application of the convict-petitioner on the premise that 3 accused, namely, Bhawani Singh, the petitioner herein, Vijay Singh @ Birju Singh and Kaptan Singh, all of whom are residents of the same village, had been convicted in the same case. If all 3 were released on parole simultaneously, it could give wrong message in the society. Citing this reason, the District Parole Advisory Committee rejected the parole application of the convict-petitioner while granting parole to the other two.

(2.) By order dtd. 15/7/2021, we had directed Mr. Farzand AN, learned G.A.-cum-A.A.G., to submit explanation of the District Magistrate, Churu regarding rejection of the second parole application of the convict-petitioner keeping in view of the directions given by this court in the case of Smt. Indra Kanwar Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. [D.B. Criminal Writ No. 17/2019 decided on 12/2/2019]. In furtherance thereof, the requisite explanation has been filed. All that is mentioned in this explanation is that because 3 accused persons hailing from the same village were convicts in this case, a conscious decision was taken not to release them simultaneously and two co-convicts, namely, Vijay Singh and Kaptan Singh, were granted parole.

(3.) Suffice it to say that the reason mentioned in this explanation and the adverse parole recommendations is absolutely perfunctory and unacceptable. Even if for a moment, it is believed that there is some rationality behind this reason, then the District Parole Advisory Committee should not have outrightly rejected the parole application of the convict-petitioner and it could have been directed that the convict-petitioner would be released on parole after the 2 co-convicts availed parole facility and surrendered back in the prison. In the alternative, the parole application of the convict-petitioner could be kept pending till such date. By rejecting the parole application in such a mechanical fashion, the parole advisory committee has significantly delayed the right of the petitioner to be considered for release on parole. More than 3 months have passed since the parole application of the convict-petitioner was rejected. It is expected that by this time, the 2 co-convicts must have availed the parole facility and would have surrendered back in the prison. If at all there was any justification in the actions of the parole committee, then they could have suo moto considered granting second parole to the convict-petitioner after the other two surrendered.