[2025:RJ-JP:15606-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Writ Petition (Parole) No. 330/2025 Trilok Chand, S/o Shri Vijay Gautam, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Usmanpur, Police Station Dhankour, District Gautambhudh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. (At Present Confined In Open Air Jail, Sanganer, Jaipur Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Home, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. The District Magistrate, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. The Superintendent Of Jail, Open Air Jail, Sanganer, District Jaipur (Rajasthan) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Krishan Kumar Chhawal & Mr.Rakesh Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr.Sudesh Saini, Addl. G.A. with Mr.Aman Kumar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 08/04/2025 1. This petition is filed seeking directions to the respondents to release the petitioner – Trilok Chand S/o Shri Vijay Gautam on second parole for thirty days. The parole was rejected by stating that the parole was not recommended, hence the committee decided to reject the prayer for parole. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the petitioner was granted first parole vide order dated 15.12.2021 in D.B. Cr.W.P. (Parole) No.1505/2021 for twenty days. The petitioner surrendered in time and was not involved in any unlawful activity. [2025:RJ-JP:15606-DB] (2 of 4) [CRLW-330/2025] 3. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the District Magistrate recommended that the petitioner falls under the category of specified offences and the possibility of indulging in criminal activities cannot be ruled out. 4. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:15606-DB] (3 of 4) [CRLW-330/2025] every year subject to the same conditions for the remaining period of his sentence. 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.” 5. 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, the case is to be recommended. 6. The impugned order rejecting prayer for parole was passed without going into the requisites of Rule 9 of the 1958 Rules. The recommendation received for which there is no basis especially in view of conduct of the petitioner during earlier parole was relied upon while passing the impugned order. [2025:RJ-JP:15606-DB] (4 of 4) [CRLW-330/2025] 7. It would be apposite to mention that the prima-facie basis for the recommendation is not evident. There is no discussion in the order that once the earlier parole availed was not misused, what was the material now available for rejecting the parole. 8. The matter is remitted back to the Committee to decide the request for parole afresh in accordance with law considering the facts of the case and the requirements of Rule 9 of the 1958 Rules. The Committee shall decide the matter within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 9. The criminal writ petition stands disposed of. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Monika/29