MAHENDRA SAINI 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 40 days under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoner's (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958 (for short, 'the Rules of 1958').

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was convicted by the trial court vide judgment dtd. 4/11/2011 for the offence under Ss. 302, 460 IPC and Sec. 3/25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. He filed a D.B. Cr. Appeal No. 634/2013 against the said judgment, which came to be dismissed. He submits that the petitioner has served about 12 years of sentence. Thus, he has served a substantive part of his sentence. The petitioner was granted 20, 30 and 40 days' regular parole, but he did not misuse the liberty granted to him and timely surrendered. He further submits that the petitioner's jail conduct is satisfactory. The petitioner filed an application before District Parole Advisory Committee for releasing him on parole, but the same has been rejected vide order dtd. 18/3/2021 on the ground that he did not appear in the roll call meeting in the evening, for which FIR No. 1049/2019 was registered at Police Station, Sanganer, Jaipur for the offence under Sec. 224 IPC. In the said case, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo 3 month's imprisonment and even during pendency of the case, the petitioner was granted regular parole. He further submits that although 48 other cases were said to be pending against the petitioner, but most of the cases have been decided. 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 an under trial prisoner. It has also been submitted that 9 criminal cases are pending against the petitioner at different police stations. It has also been submitted that the petitioner did not appear in the roll-call meeting in the evening and jumped from there, hence the petitioner should not be granted 4th regular parole.