Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 31st March, 2016 whereby his representation for grant of parole on the above-stated grounds was rejected by the competent authority for the following reasons:-

"(i) As per para 11.2 of Parole/Furlough Guidelines, 2010 provides that "the conduct in prison must have been uniformly good and jail conduct of convict is reported to be unsatisfactory being punishment dated 23/24.04.2015.
(ii) As per para 11.5 of Parole/Furlough Guidelines 2010 which provides that "a minimum of six months ought to have elapsed from the date of termination of the previous parole." The convict has previous availed 01 month parole upto 03.10.2015 by the order of DHC.
(iii) Adverse police report which states that there may be law and order problem in the area after releasing of convict on parole. The possibility of jumping the parole cannot be ruled out. Convict is involved in 13 criminal cases. He is a habitual offender. The possibility of committing similar offence by the convict cannot be ruled out."

3. The reasons ascribed by the competent authority whilst rejecting the petitioner's representation for parole in the order impugned herein, are not sustainable. The same are not supported by any cogent material and are contradictory inasmuch as, the petitioner was released on parole earlier by this Court on numerous occasions and is not stated to have misused the liberty granted to him. As far as the question of applicability of Para 11.5 of the Parole/Furlough Guidelines: 2010 is concerned, the same are merely guidelines and cannot be applied blindly in every case.