MAHENDRA KUMAR Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL PRISONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MAHENDRA Kumar the petitioner herein though present writ filed by him under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks his release on parole for a period of twenty days to look-after his ailing wife. He is presently lodged in Central Jail, Ajmer and undergoing sentence of life imprisonment. The order of conviction and sentence was passed against him by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaipur Fast Track No. 1. Tonk in Sessions Case No. 03/2003 State of Rajasthan vs. MAHENDRA Kumar and Ors. He is in continuous custody since March, 1998. He has undergone actual sentence for a period of over seven years. He applied for first parole for a period of twenty days but his application was rejected for the reason that he had a bad police record. It is the case of the petitioner that he had no adverse record. The Jail Administration, Director, Social Welfare and Village Sarpanch have recommended his release on parole to look- after his wife who is ill and there is nobody to take care of her and his children who are now at the verge of destitution. It is further the case of the petitioner that rejection of his prayer for parole on adverse police record was without basis and was an outcome of mere ipse dixit.

(2.) PURSUANT to notice issued by this Court, respondents have filed reply. The facts as mentioned in the writ petition have not been disputed. It has been averred in the written statement that the petitioner submitted an application to Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Ajmer for grant of parole of twenty days on the ground to look-after his ailing wife and his children. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Ajmer sent his application to the District Magistrate, Sikar. A report was called for from the concerned authority and the matter was put up before the District Advisory Committee on 22. 05. 2000. The District Advisory Committee after examining the complete record, nature of the crime, and the report of the Superintendent Police, Sikar, decided not to release the petitioner on parole. A photostat copy of the minutes of the Committee held on 29. 03. 2005 has been annexed as (Annexure-R1 ). It is then pleaded that since the petitioner was also convicted under Sections 395/396 IPC; parole to him would be prohibited under Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (Herein after referred to as "the Rules of 1958 ). From the pleadings made in the written statement, it is apparent that the petitioner is entitled for grant of parole under the provisions contained in Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958. It is also not disputed that his wife is ill. It is also not disputed that in existing ailing condition of the wife of the petitioner their children are also getting completely ignored as there is no one in the family to look-after them. The relief claimed by the petitioner is however being opposed on two grounds. It is first stated that the Committee considered the grant of parole to the petitioner and rejected the application for the reasons mentioned in the minutes of the Committee. A perusal of the minutes of the Committee would reveal that the Superintendent of Police reported that the wife of the petitioner is sick. It has also been mentioned that the Director, Social Welfare had sent the report wherein it has been mentioned that after verification it was found that the wife of the petitioner is sick and there was also no facility available for looking after her and his children. The co-villagers have also recommended the release of petitioner on parole by mentioning that there was no apprehension of breach of peace. The Sarpanch of Village has also recommended his release on parole. It has also been mentioned that there would be no danger if the petitioner is released on parole. However, keeping in view the report of the Supdt. of Police, Sikar, his request of parole has been rejected. All that has been mentioned in the police report is that one companion of the petitioner is in touch with the petitioner, he has been meeting with the petitioner on various dates which were given in the case. The other ground on which parole of the petitioner has been opposed that he has been involved in a case under Section 395/396 IPC and is not entitled for parole in view of provisions contained in Section 14 of the Rules of 1958.