BHERULAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor, who has accepted the same. On the joint request, this petition is being finally decided.

(2.) Convict-Bherulal was convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kota for the offence under Sections 302 and 302/34 Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000.00. His appeal against the conviction has been dismissed by this Court vide its judgment dated 19th July, 1996 passed in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 317/95. The convict is now undergoing life imprisonment and at present lodged in District Jail, Kota. It is alleged that the petitioner submitted an application before the Jail Authorities for his release on parole under the provisions of Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (for short 'the Rules, 1958) on the grounds that his wife Smt. Sushila Devi is seriously ill and is undergoing treatment but the Superintendent, District Jail Kota refused to accept the same as being not maintainable. The contention of Shri Simlot is that the wife of the convict is critically ill and that it is an emergent case involving humanitarian consideration and as such keeping in view the provisions of Rule 10-A of the Rules 1958 he is entitled to be released on parole, but the Jail Authorities have not considered his valid grievances. Sri Simlot has also placed reliance on the case of Kishan Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. [1991(1) RLR 652), wherein the Division Bench of this Court while upholding the constitutional validity of Rule 14 of the Rules 1958 has held that if an application is made by a person, who is a convict of categories specified in Rule 14 and he satisfies the conditions specified in Rule 10-A then he is entitled to be released on parole.

(3.) In the instant case the Jail Authorities have not even entertained the application filed by the petitioner for his release on parole on the ground of critical condition and serious ailment of his wife. In our considered opinion, the Jail Authorities ought to have entertained petitioner's application and should have passed the necessary orders in accordance with law.