LAXMAN @NANYA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by petitioner Laxman @Nanya challenging the order dated 3/1/2013 passed by the respondents whereby, request of the petitioner for his release on permanent parole under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (for short, the "Rules of 1958") has been declined.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that State Parole Committee has declined the request of the petitioner for his release on permanent parole on the ground of adverse police report as also the fact that he after availing of 7th regular parole, has surrendered back on 4/6/2012 and eleven months have not elapsed from that date as per requirement of Rule 10 of the Rules of 1958. Learned counsel submitted that adverse police report given by the Superintendent of Police dated 26/4/2012 is absolutely unfounded. Petitioner not only has availed 7th regular parole but he is residing in open air camp for a quite long time. There is no complaint about conduct of the petitioner. Whenever he visited his house on parole, he surrendered back in time. The jail authorities have also certified his conduct to be good. Social Welfare Department has recommended for release of the petitioner on permanent parole. Learned counsel submitted that Rule 10 of the Rules of 1958 is applicable for the regular parole so that there should be a time gap of minimum eleven months between the earlier and the next parole but that restriction is not applicable to the release on permanent parole. Learned counsel relied on the Division Bench judgment of the Principal Seat at Jodhpur in D.B. Civil Writ Petition (Parole) No.8293/2012 (Amar Singh @Amarlal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) in support of his argument. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that petitioner has earlier approached this Court for his release on permanent parole by filing writ petition, which was registered as D.B. Civil Writ Petition (Parole) No.7793/2012 and this Court vide order dated 18/5/2012 (Ann.1) directed the respondents to consider and decide the application of the petitioner for his release on permanent parole.

(3.) Learned Government Counsel has opposed the petition and submitted that Rule 10 of the Rules of 1958 has deliberately provided for keeping the distance of eleven months between the earlier and the next parole. She has further submitted that the Superintendent of Police has also given adverse report and did not recommend release of the petitioner on permanent parole. Present petition be therefore dismissed.