SUNIL SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner has preferred this writ petition for grant of parole of 20 days under rule 9 of Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on parole) Rules, 1958. He contended that an application was moved to the competent authority but the same has been rejected by the district Parole Advisory Committee vide order dated 18th December, 2008. He further contended that due to his illness he did not attend the work-shop in the jail, therefore, the superintendent of Jail made a false report and the application was wrongly rejected by the district Parole Advisory Committee, therefore, his application should be allowed.

(3.) WE have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and also 2nd December, 2008 passed by the District magistrate, Jaipur on the basis of proceedings of the District Parole Advisory Committee, jaipur dated 18th December, 2008, wherein this fact has specifically been mentioned that the jail Superintendent, the Superintendent of police as well as the Social Welfare department, all the three authorities, have not recommended the case of the petitioner for grant of parole. The petitioner was also punished with jail penalty during his custody in jail. The reason assigned by the District parole Advisory Committee for rejecting the application of the petitioner is absolutely justified and we see no reason to interfere in the same. We do not find any merit in this writ application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.