MEETHA LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This parole petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer that the petitioner be released on 4th regular parole for 07 days.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was convicted by the trial court vide judgment dated 30.10.2006 for the offence under Sections 302 and 149 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The petitioner was arrested in May, 2003 and since then he is in judicial custody. He submits that the petitioner has served about 13 years 4 months of sentence without remission. The petitioner moved an application before Superintendent, Central Jail, Bharatpur for releasing him on 4th regular parole for 07 days, who in turn placed his application before the District Parole Advisory Committee, Karauli for consideration, but the same has been rejected vide order dated 14.7.2020 on the ground of adverse police report, which is without any basis. He further submits that case for regular parole should be considered by the parole committee on the basis of the conduct and behaviour of the convict-prisoner in jail and not on the basis of adverse police report. He further submits that in the police report, Superintendent of Police, Karauli mentioned that for the period from 20.11.2013 to 29.12.2013 when the petitioner was released on 3rd parole, he did not surrender on time and absconded. Subsequently on 26.6.2017, the petitioner was arrested with illegal weapon and case no. 143/2017 was registered him for the offence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the order dated 1.12.2017 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19309/2017 titled Umar Mohammad Versus State of Rajasthan and Ors.; as also the order dated 28.11.2017 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20095/2017 titled Govind Singh Versus State of Rajasthan and Ors. and contended that in terms of Rule 18 of the Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958 if a convict jumps parole, that would not be an absolute bar for granting him second, third or fourth parole. He further submits that jail conduct of the petitioner is satisfactory and even the Social Justice and Empowerment Department has recommended to release the petitioner on parole. After registering the case no. 143/2017 on account of having the illegal weapon, the petitioner is behind the bars for about 3 1/2 years. The period of 4th parole is otherwise 40 days, but on account of escaping from parole and registration of case, it gets curtailed into 7 days. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to be granted 4th regular parole of 40 days.

(3.) In the reply, it is submitted that the petitioner is undergoing life imprisonment sentence for the offence under Section 302/149 IPC. Although the Superintendent of Jail has reported that the conduct of the petitioner in jail is satisfactory, but due to escaping from 40 days' regular parole, did not recommend parole to the petitioner. He submits that as the petitioner had earlier jumped from parole and illegal weapon was also recovered from him during absconding from jail, the petitioner should not be granted 4th regular parole.