Asfaq v. State Of Rajasthan & Others.

1. Instant parole petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking first regular parole under the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958.

2. The petitioner has been convicted by the ld. Designated Court for Rajasthan, Ajmer vide judgment dt.28.02.2004 in Sessions Case No. 6/1994 for offence u/Sec.120-B IPC; Sec.3(2)(1) of the Terrorist & Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act read with 120-B IPC; Sec.3(3) of the Terrorist & Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act; Sec.302 read with Sec.120-B IPC; and Sec.150 of the Railways Act read with Sec.120-B IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.

3. The criminal appeal, preferred by the convict-petitioner, against the judgment of conviction & sentence, is pending before the Apex Court, as alleged by him.

4. Earlier CWP No. 1373/2014 came to be preferred by the convict-petitioner for grant of first regular parole on the premise that his application itself has not been accepted by the authorities for grant of parole, as prayed for by him. The coordinate Bench of this court, disposed of the writ petition vide order dt.21.03.2014 with a direction to accept his application and the same be forwarded to the District Parole Advisory Committee to examine for grant of parole, as prayed for by him, in accordance with law.

5. In compliance of order of the court dt.21.03.2014, the application of petitioner was placed before the District Parole Advisory Committee and that came to be rejected vide order dt.12/13 of May, 2014 on the premise that he has been convicted under the Terrorist & Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act and his application for grant of parole could not be considered in view of R.1(c) of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 by the District Parole Advisory Committee.

6. After the notices of the present petition came to be served, reply has been filed by the respondents and also by the Central Government and the objection has been raised that the application filed by the petitioner for grant of parole under the Rules, 1958 was not maintainable in view of R.1(c) of the scheme of Rules.

7. Judgment of Division Bench of this court passed in D.B Civil Writ (Parole) Petition No. 12294/2011 [Shambhu Dayal v. The State of Rajasthan] dt.22.03.2012 has also been placed for perusal wherein the Division Bench of this Court has also took a view that in the cases of convict sentenced to imprisonment for the offence under NDPS Act, Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 are not applicable, as specifically barred in view of R.1(c) of the Rules, 1958 and the Rules of 1955 framed by the Central Government, vide Notification dt.9th November, 1955, are applicable for release on parole to such of the convict sentenced to imprisonment for the offence under NDPS Act or any other convict who has been sentenced to imprisonment for an offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends.

8. We consider it appropriate to quote the relevant extract of the judgment dt.22.03.2012 of the coordinate Bench of this court, referred to supra, which reads ad infra:-

“Hence, we are of the considered opinion that decisions rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the cases of Mana Singh (supra) and Samiullaha (supra) cannot be pressed into service by the convict sentenced to imprisonment under the NDPS Act or any other convict who has been sentenced to imprisonment for an offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends. In the cases of convict sentenced to imprisonment for the offence under NDPS Act or against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends, Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 are not applicable as specifically provided in Rule 1(c) of Parole Rules, 1958 and Rules of 1955 framed by the Central Government are applicable for release on parole.”

9. We have heard counsel for the parties and also perused the record.

10. In the instant case, the convict-petitioner has been convicted for offence u/Sec.120-B IPC; Sec.3(2)(1) of the Terrorist & Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act read with 120-B IPC; Sec.3(3) of the Terrorist & Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act; Sec.302 read with Sec.120-B IPC; and Sec.150 of the Railways Act read with Sec.120-B IPC and in the light of the judgment passed by this court dt.22.03.2012, referred to supra, we do not find any error being committed by the State Parole Advisory Committee in rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of first regular parole in view of R.1(c) of the Rules, 1958. However, certainly the petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh application before the concerned competent authority for grant of parole in terms of the Rules of 1955 framed by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs vide Notification dt.9 November, 1955 and if such an application is filed, it is expected from the authority to decide the same within three months.

11. Consequently, the instant petition is dismissed with liberty, as indicated above.