CHANDRA PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is serving out sentence of life imprisonment consequent upon his conviction for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. by trial court vide judgement dated 17.2.2009. The appeal against the said judgement has been dismissed by this Court. Petitioner was earlier granted first parole. However, his application for second parole has been rejected by the District Parole Advisory Committee on the premise that when he was earlier released on parole, he absconded and was arrested with delay of one and half months. Learned counsel submitted that the first parole was granted for 20 days and the allegation is that petitioner was required to surrender before the jail authorities on 29.6.2011, but he did not surrender and later arrested on 13.8.2011. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Kota has although reported the jail conduct of the petitioner satisfactory, but has separately commented against grant of parole to the petitioner on the aforesaid ground. The Social Welfare Department has recommended in favour of grant of parole, but the Superintendent of Police owing to the aforesaid fact of overstaying of the parole period, has not recommended for grant of parole to the petitioner.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of Rule 18 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958, the Superintendent of Police has discretion that in the case of overstaying the sanctioned parole or breach of any other condition laid down, if the prisoner is released on recommendation of the Superintendent of Jail concerned, the period of his release would be 7 days excluding the days of journey to home and back. The next parole will be 15 days (provided he has behaved himself well during the period) and 30 days in the fourth parole. Learned counsel therefore prayed that the petitioner should be released on parole for a period of seven days in terms of Section 18(ii) of the Rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has not applied for second parole after he availed the benefit of first parole in 2011 and that it has gone five years that he has now submitted this application for parole.

(3.) Learned Assistant Government Advocate opposed the parole petition and submitted that petitioner has dis entitled himself to be released on parole because of his previous conduct. He availed the benefit of first parole for a period from 10.6.2011 to 29.6.2011, but instead of surrendering on completion of parole period, he absconded. Thereafter, he was arrested and put behind the bar on 13.8.2011. Learned counsel therefore prayed that the petitioner should not be released on parole.