LAXMANDAS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present criminal writ petition challenges the order dtd. 14/7/2025 passed by the District Parole Advisory Committee, Jodhpur, whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of first parole for 20 days, after completion of the required sentence with remission, was rejected.

(2.) The petitioner was convicted of various offences, including the offence under Sec. 302 of the IPC, in Sessions Case No. 239/2017 by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 5, Jodhpur Metropolitan, and he is presently undergoing imprisonment for life in addition to other sentences. The petitioner was initially lodged in the regular prison and was subsequently shifted to the Open Air Camp in view of his good conduct and satisfactory performance of assigned tasks in the jail factory or jail services. Upon the recommendation and approval of the Prisoners Open Air Advisory Committee constituted under Rule 15 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules, 1972, the petitioner is now serving his sentence in the Open Air Camp. While serving his sentence there, the petitioner submitted an application before the District Parole Advisory Committee, Jodhpur, seeking grant of first parole for 20 days on the ground that he had completed the mandatory period of sentence prescribed under the Rules for availing first parole.

(3.) The District Parole Advisory Committee sought various reports from the Jail Authorities, the Police, and the Probation and Prison Welfare Officer. The Deputy Superintendent of Jail, Barmer, through his letter dtd. 15/5/2025, recommended the grant of first parole for 20 days. However, the Police Deputy Commissioner, Jodhpur (West), through his letter dtd. 23/5/2025, did not recommend parole for the petitioner, stating that his release would adversely affect society and disturb public peace. This conclusion was based on the statements of the petitioners wife, relatives, and neighbours, who objected to the grant of parole and expressed that his release would pose a threat to their lives. The Probation and Prison Welfare Officer also submitted a similar report, declining to recommend parole on the basis of statements from the petitioners family members and neighbours. Taking into consideration these three reports, the District Parole Advisory Committee rejected the petitioners request for parole. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.