MAHESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This parole writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for grant of first parole of 20 days.

(2.) The petitioner has been convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated 06.02.2003 by learned Additional District Judge(Fast Track) No. 2, Dholpur in Sessions Case No. 264/2001 for offences under Sections 143, 148, 149, 302 and 364 IPC and serving sentence of life imprisonment in Open Air Camp, Tonk. The petitioner preferred D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 475/2003 before this Court which was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 16.01.2006. It is contended that the petitioner moved application for grant of first regular parole for a period of 20 days, but the same has been dismissed by Respondent No. 2, District Parole Advisory Committee, Kota on account of adverse report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Kota vide order dated 28.04.2015. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that Jail conduct of the petitioner is satisfactory and there is no complaint against the petitioner and Deputy Director, Social Justice and Empowerment Department, Kota has recommended case of the petitioner for grant of regular first parole of 20 days. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that District Parole Advisory Committee, Kota has not considered either jail conduct of the petitioner or favourable report/recommendation of Social Justice and Empowerment Department, Kota and mechanically relied on the adverse report submitted by Superintendent of Police, Kota. The petitioner has remained in jail for about 14 years and after inclusion of remission, for about 161/2 years, but he has not been granted benefit of first parole. It is, therefore, prayed that order dated 28.04.2015 passed by Respondent No. 2 be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner and the petitioner be released on first parole of 20 days.

(3.) Mr. Sudesh Saini, learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the writ petition and submitted that Superintendent of Police, Kota has not recommended case of the petitioner for grant of first parole. It is argued that ten cases are pending against the petitioner, therefore, his application was rightly dismissed by the respondents.