[2025:RJ-JP:41408-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Writ Petition (Parole) No.733/2025 Renu Alias Rajveer Singh S/o Shri Babu Singh, R/o Sawan Bhado, Police Station Kanwas, At Present Residence Of Durga Basti, Police Station Dadabari, Kota (Raj.). (At Present Confined In Central Jail Kota) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Inspector General, Prison, Jaipur. 2. The State Parole Committee, Through Joint Secretary Department Of Home, Jaipur. 3. The Superintendent Of Central Jail, Kota. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shiv Shanker Choudhary, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, Dy.G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 10/10/2025 (Per: PRAVEER BHATNAGAR, J.) 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 07.07.2023 passed by the State Parole Advisory Committee, which declined the petitioner’s prayer for granting permanent parole under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1958”). 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Committee did not correctly consider the provisions enshrined under Rule 9 and without assigning any cogent reasons, declined the petitioner’s prayer for granting permanent parole. Further, [2025:RJ-JP:41408-DB] (2 of 5) [CRLW-733/2025] mere conviction in four cases cannot be a ground to decline the prayer of considering permanent parole. Therefore, the impugned order dated 07.07.2023 may be set aside and the petitioner may be enlarged on permanent parole. 3. Learned Deputy Government Advocate justifies the impugned order dated 07.07.2023. It is vehemently argued that as per Rule 14 of the Rules 1958, the petitioner's conduct should be satisfactory; However, the record shows that the petitioner absconded from Open Air Camp Beechhwal, Bikaner, for which an FIR No.54/2016 was lodged at Police Station Ramganjmandi, District Kota. The Superintendent of the Jail was not satisfied with the petitioner’s conduct and did not recommend his release. Further, based on the report of the Superintendent of Police Central Jail, Kota and Social Justice Department, Kota, the petitioner’s prayer for permanent parole was dismissed. Therefore, in light of Rule 14(c), coupled with the petitioner’s criminal antecedents and not finding any prospective guarantee to ensure the petitioner’s future presence, the petitioner’s prayer for permanent parole was rightly declined. 4. Heard and perused the material available on record. 5. Rule 9 of the Rules 1958 reads as under:- “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, [2025:RJ-JP:41408-DB] (3 of 5) [CRLW-733/2025] 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 thembeing 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. [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.]” Further Rule 14 of the Rules 1958 reads as follows:- “14. Ineligibility for release. - The following classes of prisoners will ordinarily not be eligible for release on parole:- (a) persons whose ordinary place of residence is outside the State of Rajasthan or who have been convicted by a Court Martial or a Court of another State; (b) Persons convicted under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908; (c) Prisoners who have escaped from the Jail or Police custody or attempted to escape; (d) Persons who have been convicted for offences under sections 121 to 140, 216A, 302, 303, 311, 328, 332, 364, 386, 387, 388, 389, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 401, 402, 413, 455, 458, 459 and 460 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; unless they have undergone [one-fourth] of the sentence including remission and the Superintendent of Jail [2025:RJ-JP:41408-DB] (4 of 5) [CRLW-733/2025] recommends the case in consultation with the District Magistrate with special reasons therefor. In granting parole to prisoners sentenced u/s. 302 I.P.C. the circumstances of the case under which the murder was committed, such as murder committed for possession of land or over the honour of women or as a result of family feuds shall be kept in view and favourably considered for parole.” 6. Rule 14(c) of the Rules of 1958 explicitly provides that a prisoner who has escaped or attempted to escape from jail or police custody shall ordinarily not be eligible for release on parole, subject to the rider that the Superintendent of Jail recommends the case in consultation with the District Magistrate, with special reasons therefore. There is neither a recommendation made from the Superintendent of Jail nor special reasons assigned for releasing the petitioner on permanent parole. 7. In the instant case, it is admitted that the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge convicted the petitioner, (Fast Track) No.2, Kota in Session Case No.12/2007 vide judgment dated 06.10.2007 and sentenced the petitioner to life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302/34 of IPC and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. The petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.313/2008 against the judgment above, which the Division Bench also dismissed vide order dated 10.02.2016. As per Rule 9 of the Rules 1958, for granting permanent parole, the prisoner's conduct should be satisfactory and it should also be seen that the prisoner shall not again repeat or commit the crime. Further, Rule 14(c) also postulates that a prisoner who has escaped from jail or police custody or attempted to escape will ordinarily not be eligible for release on parole. [2025:RJ-JP:41408-DB] (5 of 5) [CRLW-733/2025] 8. In the instant case, the petitioner has been unable to controvert the fact that the petitioner remained absconded from Open Air Camp Beechhwal, Bikaner, for three months. The petitioner also could not deny the fact that he was convicted in four other criminal cases. The petitioner has also not controverted the factual aspects in pleadings. The Jail Superintendent needs to be assured of the prisoner’s good conduct as per the provision of Rule 14 of Rules 1958. In this case, he has expressed concerns about the petitioner’s behaviour, citing past absconding from the open jail and previous criminal conduct as reasons for his dissatisfaction. It is also admitted that the Superintendent of Jail and Probation Officer, has given an adverse report regarding the petitioner's conduct. After considering the entire record and the petitioner's conduct, which showed that he remained absconded, the Concerned State Level Committee declined to enlarge the petitioner on permanent parole and if the petitioner is released on parole then there may be strong probability that petitioner shall again indulged in commission of crime. Therefore, considering the above, we don’t find any grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 9. Accordingly, the instant writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-10