Gulshan Bano vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 2 February, 2018
It is noteworthy that State has not joined issue with the
factum of convict Yakub's availing regular paroles and his jail
conduct. Relying on the reply submitted by the State, it is crystal
clear that uptil 15.11.2016 convict prisoner has served sentence
of 9 years 5 months and 24 days including jail remission and State
(3 of 4)
[CW-14592/2017]
remission. After 15.11.2016, more than a year has elapsed and
therefore by this time the convict has served substantive sentence
for almost 7 years 9 months and if State remission and jail
remission is included, then same exceeds more than 10 years and
6 months. Therefore, in that background, the impugned decision
of the State Level Parole Committee cannot be sustained being
contrary to the philosophy behind parole and permanent parole.
That apart, in the considered opinion of this Court, the State Level
Parole Committee has considered certain facts and circumstances
which were not relevant and germane to the matter while
declining permanent parole to the convict prisoner. I am
constrained to observe that the State Level Parole Committee has
not focused on the requirements envisaged under Rule 9 of the
Rules of 1958 and has also not paid attention to a very vital issue
as to whether prisoner is likely to relapse into crime. Division
Bench of this Court, in Dhanraj Saini & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
& Ors. [2012(4) WLN 144], while examining case of permanent
parole to an eligible convict prisoner, made following observations: