RAHUL ALIAS RAHUL BALAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT petition has been filed by the petitioner who is serving life imprisonment in Central Jail, Jaipur on being convicted and sentenced by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur vide judgment dt. 01.11.2006 for offence u/Ss 364, 120B and 387 IPC in Sessions Case No. 37/2006 against which D.B. Criminal Appeal -1135/2006 preferred by the petitioner against the judgment and order of conviction awarded by the learned trial Judge is pending consideration before this Court. Earlier the petitioner submitted application for grant of first parole for a period of 20 days and that came to be allowed by the learned District Magistrate granting him the benefit of first parole for a period of 20 days from 29.06.2011 -18.07.2011 which is evident from the document Annx. 1 dt. 29.06.2011 and from the material which has come on record this fact is not disputed that the petitioner abide by the conditions referred to in the order releasing him on first parole by the learned District Magistrate, after he became eligible for grant of second parole, again submitted application before the competent authority for a period of 30 days u/R 9 of Rules, 1958 and his application came to be rejected vide order Annx. 2 dt. 16.07.2012.

(2.) COUNSEL for petitioner submits that as regards the nature of offence, that was already looked into by the competent authority while granting him first parole and that could not be considered to be a basis for the requirement of R. 9 of the Rules, 1958 for grant of parole and further submits that once the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur in the nominal roll has certified about his jail conduct to be satisfactory and he has abide by the conditions at the stage when he availed first parole u/R 9 of the Rules, 1958, there appears no justification which could be considered to deny him for grant of second parole and the letter of rejection dt. 16.07.2012 Annx. 2 as regards the petitioner, referred to in para -11, on the premise of nature of offence committed by him is wholly arbitrary and to that extent it deserves to be quashed.

(3.) THE Deputy Government Advocate while supporting the order impugned submits that nature of offence committed by the incumbent is one of the factor to be kept in mind and the committee on overall assessment and his jail conduct did not found him suitable for grant of second parole as prayed for.