[2025:RJ-JP:16720-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 331/2025 Ramkishan @ Goliya S/o Banwari Lal, R/o Village Kha Rojda, Police Station Khetri, District Neem Kaa Thana (Rajasthan) Now Presently Confined At Open Air Camp Sanganer, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. District Magistrate, Neem Kaa Thana 3. Superintendent, Central Jail Jaipur. 4. In-Charge Open Air Camp, Sanganer, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Dheeraj Singhal For Respondent(s) : Mr.Sudesh Saini, Addl. G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 21/04/2025 1. This petition is filed aggrieved of order dated 07.11.2024 rejecting the prayer for second parole made by Ramkishan @ Goliya. 2. The petitioner is undergoing life imprisonment in the Open Air Camp, Sanganer, Jaipur. The petitioner availed first regular parole of twenty days from 13.10.2020 to 01.11.2020 and surrendered within the stipulated period. 3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that prayer of the petitioner for grant of parole was rejected relying on a report of District Probation and Social Welfare Officer (for short ‘the Probation Officer’) which is without basis. [2025:RJ-JP:16720-DB] (2 of 4) [CRLW-331/2025] 4. Learned Addl. G.A. submits that the Committee unanimously rejected the prayer for parole. 5. Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (for short ‘1958 Rules’) is reproduced below:- “9. Parole period - A prisoner, who has completed with remission, if any, [one-fourth] of his sentence and subject to good conduct in the Jail, may be released on 1st parole for 20 days including days of journey to home and back and for 30 days on 2nd parole provided his behaviour has been good during the 1st parole and for 40 days on third parole provided his behaviour has been good during the second parole. If during the third parole also the prisoner has behaved well and his character has been exceedingly well and if the prisoner's conduct has been such that he is not likely to relapse into crime, his case may be recommended to the Government through the [State Committee] for permanent release on parole on such conditions as deemed fit by the Superintendent Jail and the District Magistrate concerned; the chief condition among them being that if the prisoner while on parole commits any offence or abets, directly or indirectly, commission of any offence, he has to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence in addition to any sentence imposed upon him by reason of such an offence. In cases the permanent release on parole is rejected the prisoner will be eligible for release on parole for 40 days every year subject to the same conditions for the remaining period of his sentence. [2025:RJ-JP:16720-DB] (3 of 4) [CRLW-331/2025] Provided the cases of prisoners who have been sentenced to imprisonment for life, for an offence for which death penalty is one of the punishments provided by law or who have been sentenced to death but this sentence has been commuted under section 433 of Code of Criminal Procedure into one of life imprisonment shall not be placed before the State Committee for permanent release on parole unless he has served 14 years of imprisonment excluding remission but including the period of detention passed during enquiry, investigation or trial. Such prisoners may be released on parole for 40 days every year for the remaining period of their sentence subject to the conditions stated above.” 6. Rule 9 of the 1958 Rules stipulates that on completion of one-fourth of sentence and subject to the good conduct in jail, the petitioner may be released on parole. First, second and third parole being of twenty, thirty and forty days respectively. The additional condition in the subsequent parole is that the behavior during the earlier parole had remained good and the conduct does not indicate relapse into crime. 7. In the case in hand, it is not in dispute that there was no untoward incident involving the petitioner during the period of first parole and the petitioner surrendered within the stipulated time. Inspite of the fact mentioned, the Probation Officer submitted a report that in case the petitioner is released on parole, there are chances of disturbing the public tranquility. The report was accepted by the Committee without going into the basis on which [2025:RJ-JP:16720-DB] (4 of 4) [CRLW-331/2025] the report was prepared. The earlier parole granted after complying with the norms of 1958 Rules was not misused. 8. It would be worthwhile to mention that even in the reply filed before this Court, there is not even a whisper for forming basis that release of the petitioner shall effect the public peace. The impugned order is passed by non-application of mind and without considering the pre-requisites of Rule 9 of 1958 Rules for granting parole especially second parole in this case. 9. The impugned order is set aside and the criminal writ petition (Parole) is allowed. The order/recommendation of the District Parole Advisory Committee dated 07.11.2024 qua the accused-petitioner is quashed. The Jail Authorities are directed to release the petitioner on second regular parole for a period of thirty days on furnishing of personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur with the stipulation that the accused-petitioner shall surrender himself before the Jail Authorities on expiry of the parole period and shall maintain peace and tranquility during the parole period. 10. In case of failure to surrender by stipulated date, the Jail Authorities shall proceed in accordance with law. 11. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur by fax today itself for necessary compliance. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Monika/63