[2025:RJ-JP:2265] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.1867/2024 Mohammed Yahya S/o Abutalib, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Salimpur, Police Station Gangarampur, District Dinajpur South, (West Bengal) Tenant House No. 61-62, White House Beg Sahab Colony Nai Ki Thadi, Police Station Amer, Jaipur (At Present Serving His Sentence In Special Central Jail, Shyalawas Dausa) Through His Cousin Brother Mustafa S/o Iqbal, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Janu, District Mathura (U.p.) 281502 ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Home, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. The District Magistrate, Dausa (Raj.). 3. Superintendent Special Central Jail, Shyalawas Dausa (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Vishram Prajapati For Respondent(s) : Mr.Manvendra Singh, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 16/01/2025 1. By invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner has filed this petition challenging the impugned order dated 27.08.2024, passed by the respondents by which the application filed by the petitioner for grant of parole has been rejected for want of his verification with regard to his place of residence. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 376(2)(D) of I.P.C. vide judgment dated 17.09.2021 and he was sentenced to [2025:RJ-JP:2265] (2 of 3) [CRLW-1867/2024] undergo 10 years of imprisonment. Counsel submits that before trial and after conviction, the petitioner has remained in custody for more than five years, hence under these circumstances, as per Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021 (for short, "the Rules of 2021"), an application was submitted for grant of parole which has been denied for want of verification of his place of residence. 3. Counsel submits that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Salimpur, Police Station Gangarampur, District Dinajpur South, West Bengal where his mother, wife and children are residing, therefore, indulgence of parole be granted to the petitioner in terms of Rule 10 of the Rules of 2021. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer and submitted that the petitioner has not completed even half sentence and he is not entitled to get benefit of regular parole. He further submits that as per the impugned order, the verification report from the concerned police officials of Dinajpur was received at the time of passing of the impugned order, hence under these circumstances, the petitioner does not deserve any indulgence of parole. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 6. This Court vide orders dated 28.11.2024 & 10.12.2024 directed the Superintendent of Police, South Dinajpur, West Bengal as well as Assistant Director, Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, South Dinajpur, West Bengal to submit their verification report. [2025:RJ-JP:2265] (3 of 3) [CRLW-1867/2024] 7. In pursuant of the aforesaid order passed by this Court, the report dated 24.12.2024 has been received which indicates that the mother, mother-in-law, wife and daughter of the petitioner is residing at village Ashokgram, Police Station Gangarampur, District South Dinajpur, since the petitioner has already completed the custody of more than half sentence, the petitioner deserves grant of first regular parole. 8. In view of the above, the petition stands allowed. The impugned order dated 27.08.2024 stands quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. The respondents are directed to release the petitioner on first regular parole for a period of 20 days, after taking the undertaking from the petitioner and after doing the needful in terms of Rules of 2021 to ensure that the petitioner would return back to serve the remaining sentence after completion of the parole period. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharam /156