JAGDISH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner convict claimed seven days parole as per Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1958") but that was rejected by the District Level parole Advisory Committee, Baran in its meeting dated 27.1.2011 on the count that the conduct of petitioner- convict as per the report submitted by Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur was not satisfactory and further that while availing first parole of 20 days the prisoner absconded. Being aggrieved by the same the petitioner preferred a petition for writ before this Court and that came to be allowed vide order dated 8.11.2011 with a direction to the respondents to release petitioner Jagdish son of Chhotelal on parole for a period of seven days in accordance with Rule 18 of the Rules of 1958 by imposing adequate terms and conditions. In pursuant to the order aforesaid the District Parole Advisory Committee, Baran in its meeting dated 25.5.2012 granted seven days parole to the petitioner subject to furnishing two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each and personal bond of Rs.50,000/-.

(2.) AFTER grant of parole as above, the petitioner again approached this Court by way of addressing letter to Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court with assertion that he is not in position to furnish two sureties as his wife and minor children are neither having any property nor they are in position to pursue anyone else to come forward to furnish the sureties. We have considered all facts of the case. The petitioner earlier availed parole and at that time he failed to surrender before the competent authority and as such he was subjected to a jail penalty. His entitlement for having 30 days regular parole too has been reduced for a period of seven days as per Rule 18 of the Rules of 1958. The persons who furnished sureties earlier may not be coming forward now to furnish sureties obviously as the petitioner failed to surrender himself within the period prescribed. The fact that the petitioner is coming from lower echelons with very poor economic condition is not in dispute. We are of the view that the economic condition of a convict prisoner should not be an impediment in getting aims and objects of the Rules of 1958 achieved though a reasonable restriction is necessary to ensure return of a convict prisoner after availing parole.