Balia, J.
1. This petition has come up for consideration for the reason that the parole application filed by the appellant has been rejected primarily on the ground that the prisoner in question is resident of a place which is out-side the State of Rajasthan. He has already been denied parole. For this reason the petitioner has also referred to Article 21 and Article 14 stating that denying a parole on the ground of residence alone results in violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14, 15 and 21. This necessitated examining the validity of Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958.
2. In view of the aforesaid, the contention raised by the appellant in his application, who is not represented by the counsel, we issued notice to Advocate General for assisting the Court in the matter.
3. The Advocate General has urged that under Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958 (for short, 'the Rules'), there is no absolute bar against the eligibility for release on parole of a person, who is ordinarily resident of outside the State of Rajasthan but such persons may be considered for grant of parole on fulfillment of condition mentioned in the Rules provided in such cases a proper verification of their residence in the State of origin is made. There is no impediment on considering their application for release on parole by the Competent Authority. The Competent Authority will not be justified in refusing the grant of such application if all the particulars and antecedents of the convict in the State of origin is verified, which do not affect otherwise the release of such applicant on parole.
4. On the careful reading of Rule 14 of the Rules of 1958 we are of the opinion that this reading of the rule by learned Advocate General is fair and justifiable and it does not in any manner be said to be in violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Rule 14 of the Rules, 1958 reads as under:-
'14. Ineliglbility 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 forth of the sentence including remission and the Superintendent of Jail recommends the case in consultation with the District Magistrate with special reasons therefor. In granting parole to prisoners sentences under Section 302, IPC the circumstances of the case under which the murder was committed, such as murder committed for possession of land or over honour of women or as a result of family feuds shall be kept in view and favourably considered for parole.'
5. The use of negative expression, qualified with word 'Ordinarily' coupled with providing conditions in which conditions for exception to ordinarily envisaged prohibition has been slated, leaves no room of doubt that Rule 14 does not create an absolute bar against considering the applications for release on parole by a convict who falls in any of the category mentioned in Clause (a) to (d) of Rule 14. Words of Rule 14 are expression with 'ordinarily' and the conditions for release of the persons, who have been named in Clause (a) and (b) are to be considered only on conditions specified in the later part of the said rule.
6. The expression 'unless' denotes that the persons failing in any of category (a) to (d) can not be considered for release on parole, unless they have undergone 1/4 of the sentence including remission and release on parole can take place only if Superintendent of Jail recommends the case in consultation with the District Magistrate with special reasons therefor.
7. In parenthesis Rule 14 read like this that the class of persons enumerated in Clauses (a) to (d) will ordinarily be not eligible for release on parole unless they have undergone 1/4 of the sentence including remission and the Superintendent of Jail recommends the case in consultation with the District Magistrate with special reasons therefor.
8. This conveys that ordinarily the class of prisoners (a) to (d) will not be eligible for release on parole but if they have undergone 1/4 of the sentence including remission the application for release on parole becomes liable to be considered. Such consideration which must take place by the Superintendent of Jail in consultation with District Magistrate, if on such consideration the Jail Superintendent finds that there exist any special reason to release a person falling in category (a) to (d) of Rule 14, such convict applicant can be released on parole, otherwise not.
9. Thus, there is no absolute impediment in considering the application for release of persons falling in category (a) to (d), after they have undergone 1/4 of the sentence, providing for such release on parole, exist to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent in consultation with the District Magistrate. If the two authorities in consultation, agree that the special reasons exist for release of any person falling in the category (a) to (d) on parole after completion of their 1/4 sentence, ordinarily such parole cannot be refused.
10. In view of above, we do not find that there is any discrimination affecting the fundamental rights of the prisoners as a class under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution. Since such convicts are sentenced in accordance with due authorities of law, their setting free before expiry of term of sentence depends only on the permission of rule governing such premature or temporary release. All the categories included in Clauses (a) to (d) or founded an criterion having reasonable nexus with the object for framing rules providing an exception to continued serving the sentence in unbroken period on purely humanitarian approach to life of the prisoners. Primary object of criminal law viz., bring to book those who have breached the Code of Conduct of discipline to be maintained by any organised society. Right to freedom of those who have committed the offences violating the basic norms necessary for peaceful co- existence of society with a sense of security in smooth maintenance of law and order, has to be weighed against danger that is likely to affect that sense of security and maintenance of rule of law and effective implementation of judicial orders. All the grounds that have been stated in category (a) to (d) are designed to maintain that balance between these two competing claims. The classification, therefore, cannot be held to be arbitrary or unjust or irrational.
11. Any case of non-consideration by the authorities without application of mind can be brought before the Court. It is desirable that in such case where a prisoner whose ordinary place of residence is outside the State of Rajasthan, his parole application is not rejected by merely referring to Rule 14. But genuine efforts should be made to find out the correctness of the address, the antecedents of the prisoners in the State of origin in which place of his ordinary residence is situated; his reputation in the locality in the place of ordinary residence and the circumstances in which release on parole is requested and order is made on such premises, the purpose of Rule 14 is served; rather than in not entertaining the application at all. It may be cautioned what shall constitute 'special reason' within the meaning of Rule 14 is not capable of exhaustively defined. Suffice it to say that saying that the causes which routinely occur may not be a ground for release. It ought to some exempliant circumstances.
12. We find from the application that the applicant apprehending that this case for the parole shall not be considered as he is a resident of Hariyana. He has moved the application directly to this Court. In the aforesaid circumstances, we deem it proper that the application be considered by Jail Superintendent in consultation with Probation Officer and the District Magistrate, whether the applicant can be released on parole.
13. Copy of the order shall be sent to the appellant in Jail.
14. The petition accordingly stand disposed of.