DHANRAJ SAINI Vs. STATE OF RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-prisoner has sent this letter petition stating the grievance that he was not being granted permanent parole despite being eligible and entitled therefor.

(2.) THE respondents have filed a reply wherefrom it appears that as on 23.05.2012, the petitioner-prisoner had indeed served the actual sentence for a period of about 14 years 6 months and 25 days; and inclusive of jail remission, the period comes to about 16 years 11 months and 19 days. It is further submitted in the reply that upon moving of an application for permanent parole by the petitioner on 03.11.2011, the requisite reports from the concerned officials of have been called and reminders have also been sent but the reports were awaited. It is submitted that as soon as the requisite reports would be received, the application for permanent parole of the petitioner shall be considered and decided. The respondents have also pointed out in the reply that the petitioner has preferred another petition for release on permanent parole, being Parole Petition No.4633/2012.

(3.) THE present matter is an apposite illustration for the requirement stated hereinabove. We have requisitioned the record of Parole Petition No.4633/2012 and upon examining and comparing the two records, find that in fact, the same prisoner had earlier addressed the letter dated 23.04.2012 that was received in the registry on 26.04.2012 and thereupon, petition number 4633/2012 was registered. Reply in the said petition was filed on 18.05.2012 . Then, another letter was addressed by the same prisoner on 07.05.2012 that was received in the Registry on 10.05.2012 and thereupon, the present petition was registered at number 5074/2012. However, office has not indicated in the present file about any previous petition by the same prisoner.