SHYOPAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition for parole has been filed by petitioner through his wife Bimla @ Vimla. Petitioner is serving his sentence for life imprisonment in pursuance of judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Sikar, dated 26.03.2011, for offence under Sections 302/34 IPC. He is presently confined in the Central Jail, Bikaner. Against the said judgment, his appeal being D.B. Criminal Appeal No.365/2011 is pending before this court. The prayer is made that he be granted second regular parole for thirty days.

(2.) Notices were issued of the petition on 27.10.2015 and respondent State has filed reply thereto on 16.11.2015. Along-with the reply, the respondents have placed on record the nominal roll issued by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Bikaner, and the proceedings dated 01.10.2015 of the District Parole Advisory Committee, Sikar, which are Annexure R/1 and R/2, respectively. The petitioner has completed 7 years 10 months and 11 days sentence in total as on 31.10.2015, including the remission. The case of the petitioner for second regular parole has been rejected by the District Parole Advisory Committee in its meeting dated 01.10.2015 on the basis of the report of the Superintendent of Police, Sikar, who gave adverse report stating that if the petitioner is granted parole, there could be danger to the complainant party.

(3.) Earlier the petitioner was released on first regular parole. He has already served out sentence of 7 years 10 months and 11 days in total as on 31.10.2015, including the remission. He never misused the liberty granted to him. His jail conduct is reported to be satisfactory. There is no adverse report even from the Social Justice and Empowerment Department, which has favourably recommended for his second regular parole. There is no adverse report against the petitioner either inside the jail or during parole. There is no assertion by the respondent State that he ever misused the liberty whenever he was released on paroles, referred to above. As per nominal roll, the jail conduct of the petitioner is satisfactory. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Bikaner, has recommended that petitioner should be released on second regular parole. The Assistant Director, Social Justice and Empowerment Department, Sikar, in his report, has stated that earlier also petitioner was released on first regular parole for 20 days and he surrendered back after peacefully availing the parole period. The apprehension of the District Parole Advisory Committee is based on the report of the Assistant Director, Social Justice and Empowerment Department, Sikar, wherein it is reported that Smt. Santosh Devi, wife of brother of complainant party, does not reside in village Raiwas, District Sikar, and has been residing in village Chanana, District Jhunjhunu, which is 50 kilometers away. The Assistant Director, Social Justice and Empowerment Department, has favourably recommended his release on parole. The Superintendent of Police, Sikar, however, gave adverse report on the premise that if he is released on parole, the petitioner might indulge in another offence. The petitioner was earlier denied benefit of first parole on the premise that his wife has performed second marriage, hence living with another person, whereas this fact was found to be incorrect. It was the wife of deceased, who contacted second marriage and not the petitioner's wife. The prayer of petitioner for grant of second parole thus appears to have been mechanically rejected. We see no reason not to grant him benefit of second parole when as per the Rules he has become entitled to second regular parole.