MOHABAT SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A letter has been received by this Court from Mohabat Singh, convicted prisoner of Central Jail, Jodhpur, which has been treated as a letter petition. Vide order dt. 10.01.2012, this Court had appointed Ms. Anita Gehlot as amicus curiae to argue the case on behalf of Mohabat Singh. Ms. Anita Gehlot has contended that Mohabat Singh was convicted for offences under Secs. 342, 324, 323, 304(1) IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ St Act and was sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment, vide judgment dt. 23.01.2005 passed by the Special Judge, (SC/ST Act) Cases Sirohi. The learned Judge had acquitted him for offence under Sec. 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act. So far the petitioner has completed eight years, eight months and eleven days. During this period of incarceration, he was released on interim bail for twenty days. He has further released on emergent parole in 2006. He has also completed his three regular paroles under the Rajasthan Prisioners (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958. During his bail period and during his furlough, he had maintained peace and tranquility, and followed the conditions of the bail and parole. He had not created any law and order problem. Since the petitioner was eligible for being released on permanent parole under Rule 9 of the Rules, he had applied for the same. However, vide order dtd. 28/ 29.06.2011, the State Level Parole Committee has rejected his case ostensibly on the ground that the reports of the District Magistrate, Sirohi and of S.P., Sirohi were against him. Subsequently, the said order was sent to the State Government. Vide order dt. 09.08.2011, the recommendation of the Parole Committee has been accepted by the State Government.

(2.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Anita Gehlot, once the petitioner was granted interim bail and was released on three regular paroles, the observations made by the District Magistrate, Sirohi and by the S.P., Sirohi are unfounded. According to both of them, in case the petitioner were to be released on permanent parole, it would further create difficulties between the family of the accused -petitioner and the family of the complainant. However, there is no evidence to support the conclusion drawn by the District Magistrate, Sirohi and S.P., Sirohi. Moreover, in catena of cases, this Court has held that such a report should not be accepted ipsi dixi by the Committee. Furthermore, she has drawn the attention of this Court towards the report of the Social Welfare Officer who has clearly stated that even on earlier occasion, when the petitioner was released by the parole committee, no difficulty was created by the petitioner with the family of the complainant. Therefore, even if he were to be released on permanent parole, no law and order problem would be created. Thus, the Social Welfare Officer had clearly recommended the case of the petitioner for permanent parole. However, on the reports of District Magistrate, Sirohi and S.P., Sirohi, the case of the petitioner for permanent parole was rejected.

(3.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.