DEENA @ DEENDAYAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is serving out sentence consequent upon his conviction for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 395, 396 and 302 IPC awarded by the Court of special Judge (Anti Dacoity Cases) , Dholpur, District Dholpur in Sessions Case No.47/2008 vide judgement dated 03.06.2014. The appeal against the said judgement has been dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 13.12.2017. Since the petitioner has completed more than one fourth of his sentence, he applied for grant of first regular parole, which has been rejected by the District Parole Advisory Committee, Dholpur in its meeting dated 30.12017 and order in this regard was passed on 19.12.2017 only on the ground of adverse report of Superintendent of Police, Dholpur and District Probation and Social Welfare Officer, Dholpur.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the District Parole Advisory Committee has declined to release the petitioner on parole on the ground that there were 15 cases registered against him but according to him, all the aforesaid cases were pertaining to the years 2004, 2005 and 2006 and no new case thereafter was registered against the petitioner. Except one case of 2006, i.e. Case No. 36/2006 for offence under Sections 399, 402, 353, 307 IPC, Section 3/25 Arms Act, Section 11 RDA Act, all other cases have been decided and conduct of the petitioner in the jail has been found to be satisfactory, which is evident from the report of Superintendent, Central Jail, Bharatpur and nominal roll of the petitioner. It is argued that District Probation and Social Welfare Officer, Dholpur has not recommended case of the petitioner only because of past criminal cases registered against the petitioner. The petitioner has actually served out sentence of 7' years and if the period of remission is added thereto, this would extend to 8 years. It is, therefore, prayed that the petitioner may be granted an opportunity to join the mainstream of the society as a reformed citizen, which is the object of grant of parole.

(3.) Learned Additional Advocate General opposed the petition and argued that looking to number of criminal cases registered against the petitioner in the past, his parole application has rightly been dismissed by the District Advisory Committee.