[2025:RJ-JP:27493-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 476/2025 Wasim S/o Shri Masuk Ali, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Plot No. 80, New Dhan Mandi Kota Police Station Gumanpura, Kota (Islam Nagar Police Station Kanwas) District Kota (Raj.) (At Present E-12 Krishna Nagar Bajrang Nagar, Police Station Vorkheda, District Kota. (At Present Serving Sentence In Open Air Camp Kota). ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan, through its Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. The Zonal Commissioner, Zone Kota (Raj.) 3. The Director General, Directorate Prison Rajasthan Jaipur. 4. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Kota (Raj.). ----Non-Petitioners For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Govind Prasad Rawat For Non-Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Chaudhary, G.A.-cum-AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 23/07/2025 AVNEESH JHINGAN, J:- 1. This petition is filed aggrieved of decision of the state level parole advisory committee, Kota (for short ‘committee’.) The committee in its meeting held on 07.01.2025 rejected the prayer of the petitioner for premature release. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner in Sessions Case No.8/2011 was convicted under Sections 302, 302/34 IPC and 3/25 of Arms Act, 1959 vide judgment dated 20.10.2015 and sentenced life imprisonment. The appeal (D.B. Criminal Appeal [2025:RJ-JP:27493-DB] (2 of 4) [CRLW-476/2025] No.28/2016) against conviction was dismissed by the Court on 19.09.2019 and the petitioner has not challenged dismissal of the appeal. The case of the petitioner after serving more than seventeen years of sentence including remission was considered for premature release under the Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 2006 (for short ‘the Rules’). The petitioner was found eligible under Rule 8 and recommendations of the advisory board for premature release were forwarded for consideration to the Government. In the meeting held on 07.01.2025 case for premature release was rejected by the committee stating:- (i) that the petitioner is undergoing life imprisonment for the offence of murder; (ii) that the petitioner was involved in criminal activities for which two FIRs were registered at Police Station Vigyan Nagar and Gumanpura, Kota; and the petitioner is thirty three years of age and his re-indulgence in criminal activities cannot be ruled out. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was released eight time on parole during the period 2016 to 2023 and no untoward incident was reported. Contention is that the social welfare department had recommended the case of the petitioner for premature release. 4. As per contra the decision was passed on recommendations of the advisory board, which was formed after taking into consideration the relevant circumstances. 5. Rule 7 of the Rules provides details to be examined by the advisory board before recommending shortening of sentence or premature release of prisoners. [2025:RJ-JP:27493-DB] (3 of 4) [CRLW-476/2025] 5.1 Rule 8 of the Rules stipulates conditions for eligibility of prisoner for premature release. It would be apposite to note that there is no dispute with regard to the petitioner being eligible for consideration of case for premature release. 5.2 Under Rule 10 ‘procedure’ is prescribed for placing all necessary information before the advisory board. The consideration by Government on receipt of the proceedings of advisory board is circumscribed in Rule 12. The consideration under Rule 12 is that prisoner may be released without any harm or danger to the society and the victim and his family. 6. The case of the petitioner was rejected taking into consideration that after involvement in FIR No.244/2010, in which the petitioner was sentenced life imprisonment, the petitioner was involved in two more FIR’s. 7. The photostat copy of details of the criminal antecedents produced by learned G.A.-cum-AAG is taken on record. From perusal of the documents produced, it is evident that in both the cases registered in 2010 and 2011 at police station Vigyan Nagar and Gumanpura, Kota, the petitioner was acquitted. It is undisputed fact that petitioner was released eight time on parole during the period from 2016 to 2023 and no untoward incident was reported. Both the aspect mentioned herein have not been considered while passing the impugned order. 8. Thus the impugned order has been passed without considering pre-requisites as required under the Rules and factual aspects noted in above paras, consequently, the decision rejecting the prayer for premature release of the petitioner is set aside. The [2025:RJ-JP:27493-DB] (4 of 4) [CRLW-476/2025] matter is remitted to be decided afresh in accordance with law after considering the material factual aspects. 9. Taking into account that the petitioner has undergone sentence of more than seventeen years, it would be appreciated if the case is dealt with expeditiously not later than three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 10. The writ petition is allowed. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Simple Kumawat /46