[2025:RJ-JP:31911-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 2289/2024 Lala @ Waris S/o Shri Chhote Khan, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Bhayadi, Police Station Khoh, District Deeg (Raj.) (At Present Confined In Central Jail Sewar, Bharatpur) Through His Brother- Ali Mohammad S/o Shri Chhote Khan, Aged About 38 Years R/o Bhayadi, Police Station Khoh, District Deeg (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Inspector General, Prison, Jaipur. 2. The District Parole Advisory Committee, Through The District Magistrate, Deeg (Raj.). 3. The Superintendent, Central Jail Sewar, Bharatpur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Govind Prasad Rawat For Respondent(s) : Mr.Jeetendra Singh Rathore, Addl. Govt. Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU Order 14/08/2025 AVNEESH JHINGAN, J:- 1. This petition is filed aggrieved of order dated 25.11.2024 passed by the District Magistrate, Deeg rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for grant of seven days parole. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner is convicted and sentenced life imprisonment vide judgment dated 11.11.2016 in Sessions Case No.61/2015 for the offence under Sections 395 & 364A IPC. The petitioner was earlier released on parole but overstayed for two days, thereafter an application was filed for grant of parole for seven days. The application filed for release of the petitioner on parole for seven days was rejected on [2025:RJ-JP:31911-DB] (2 of 3) [CRLW-2289/2024] 25.11.2024 on the basis of report of the District Parole Advisory Committee and Superintendent of Police (Jail), Deeg. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the District Probation and Social Welfare Officer had recommended to grant parole to the petitioner. Further submits that the jail conduct of the petitioner after first parole is satisfactory. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the petitioner had earlier overstayed the sanctioned parole period, hence not entitled for release on parole. 5. Rule 18 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (for short ‘ 1958 Rules’) is reproduced below:- “18. Punishment for breach of conditions of Parole.- The following punishments may be awarded to the prisoners for over staying their sanctioned parole period or for breach of any other condition laid down namely:- (i) He should not be let off on parole in future unless the Superintendent of Jail is fully satisfied that he will not commit any breach of conditions in future. (ii) In case the prisoner is released on parole on the recommendation of the Superintendent of Jail concerned after the breach of condition, the period of release on parole would be 7 days excluding days of journey to home and back. The next Parole will be 15 days (provided he has behaved himself well during the period) and 30 days in the fourth parole. (iii) If the prisoner again overstays or commits any breach of the terms of the parole, he shall be permanently debarred from the concession of release on parole. 6. The punishment provided under Rule 18 of the 1958 Rules for breach of conditions of parole is that the inmate shall not be released on parole in future till satisfaction of the Superintendent [2025:RJ-JP:31911-DB] (3 of 3) [CRLW-2289/2024] of Jail that the inmate shall not commit breach of parole condition in future; secondly the petitioner after breach of condition shall be released on parole for seven days and the next parole will be fifteen days and thereafter for thirty days. In case of the petitioner again overstays or commits any breach of parole condition, the inmate is permanently debarred for release on parole. 7. From perusal of report of the District Probation and Social Welfare Officer, it is evident that case of the petitioner was recommended. The only reason mentioned in the report of the Superintendent of Police (Jail), Deeg is that earlier the petitioner had overstayed the sanctioned parole period. 8. From reading of Rule 18 of the 1958 Rules, it is evident that a single breach of overstay does not debar the petitioner for all times to come for being released on parole. The Superintendent of Police (Jail) has to be satisfied that the breach of condition shall not be committed in future. 9. In the case in hand, no satisfaction has been recorded by the Superintendent of Police (Jail) in pursuance to Rule 18 of the 1958 Rules. Rather the case has been dealt with as if the first breach in itself debars the petitioner from availing the concession of parole. 10. The impugned order dated 25.11.2024 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the respondent No.2 to decide the application of parole afresh in accordance with law. 11. The appeal is allowed. (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Monika/60 Reportable Yes