Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1502 (RAJ)

Paras Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2001-09-17

A.C.GOYAL, SHIV KUMAR SHARMA

body2001
JUDGMENT 1. (Oral) - The petitioners Paras Ram and Ratan @ Ram Ratan have filed the instant petition with the prayer that the Superintendent, Central Jail, Kota, be directed to release the petitioners on parole for a period of 20 days in consonance with Rule 9 of Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules 1958, (for short 'the Parole Rules'). 2. It is contended in the petition that the petitioners were convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Kota, in Sessions Case No. 146/94, to undergo imprisonment for life vide judgment dated October 6, 1997. Both the petitioners are in judicial custody since July 15, 1994. They have undergone 1/4th of the sentence awarded to them, therefore, they applied for release on first parole for a period of 20 days under Rule 9 of the Parole Rules. 3. The Advisory Committee, vide order dated July 19, 2001, dismissed the application on the ground that the Superintendent of Police, Kota (Rural) in its report stated that the release of the petitioners on parole will not be justified as it may disturb the peace and tranquility in the society and may cause danger to the lives of the petitioners. Aggrieved against the said order, the instant petition has been preferred by the petitioners. 4. The State of Rajasthan in the written statement supported the report of the Superintendence of Police (Rural) Kota, and averred that the release of the petitioners on parole will disturb the peace and tranquility in the society and may cause danger to the lives of the petitioners. 5. We, have reflected over the rival submissions made before us by the learned counsel for the parties and carefully scanned the material on record as well as the relevant statutory rules placed before us.Rule 9 of the Parole Rules provides thus : 9. "Parole Period. -A prisoner, who has completed with remission, if any, (one-fourth) of his sentence 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, 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 them being 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 case the permanent release on parole is rejected, the prisoner will be eligible for release will be eligible for release on parole for 40 days every year subject to the same conditions for the remaining period of his sentence." 6. It is evident that 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. There is nothing on record to suggest that the conduct of the petitioners in Jail was not good. It appears that invoking provisions contained in rule 5 of the Parole Rules, the granting of parole was declined to the petitioners. Rule 5(a) of the Parole Rules provides that after consulting the Probation Officer where appointed and if felt necessary the Superintendent of Police or the District Magistrate concerned will give his remarks, whether the convict in question should be released on Parole or not. In case the District Magistrate raises no objection to let off the prisoner on parole, he would send all the papers in original to the State Committee or District Committee for orders stating the conditions on which the prisoner may be released on parole. In case the District. Magistrate dis-approves of the release, the application will be sent to the Superintendent Jail concerned, stating the reasons of disapproval. 7. A look at the report of District Magistrate, Kota, demonstrates that it is based on the report of Superintendent of Police (Rural), Kota. The Superintendent of Police (Rural), Kota, vide letters dated submitted his report to District Magistrate, Kota, in regard to the petitioners. 7. A look at the report of District Magistrate, Kota, demonstrates that it is based on the report of Superintendent of Police (Rural), Kota. The Superintendent of Police (Rural), Kota, vide letters dated submitted his report to District Magistrate, Kota, in regard to the petitioners. Letters dated April 23, 2001 and April 28, 2001 have been annexed as Annexures R. 1 and R. 2 with the reply. We have perused both these documents. In these documents the Superintendent of Police (Rural), Kota, expressing his opinion wrote that to release the 'petitioners on parole is not required for construction of their house as their house already existed in which the joint family of the petitioners has been residing. It is further stated that in the event of visit of the petitioners in Kanvas, there may be chances of breach of peace. But in support of this opinion, no material was placed on record. The learned District Magistrate, mechanically supported the report of the Superintendent of Police, though it was necessary for the District Magistrate to examine the matter afresh on the basis of the report of the Superintendent. 8. In a similar situation, Division Bench of this Court in Anil Thakur v. State of Rajasthan, reported in WLC (Rajasthan) 2001, 460 , indicated that release of a convict can not be refused merely on ipse dixit of police report. 9. In the instant case we do not find any substantial reason for not releasing the petitioners on parole. As per the requirement of rule 9, a prisoner is entitled to be released on parole provided he fulfills all the requirements of the said rule. 10. We are satisfied that the respondent has not properly appreciated the provisions contained in Rule 9 of the Parole Rules. The conduct of the petitioners in jail was not bad and they were entitled to the first parole as envisaged in rule 9. Merely on the ipse dixit of police report, parole cannot be refused. In view of this, we have no option except to set-aside the order dated July 19, 2001, of learned District Magistrate, Kota and to release the petitioners on parole under rule 9 of the Parole Rules for a period of 20 days. 11. Merely on the ipse dixit of police report, parole cannot be refused. In view of this, we have no option except to set-aside the order dated July 19, 2001, of learned District Magistrate, Kota and to release the petitioners on parole under rule 9 of the Parole Rules for a period of 20 days. 11. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed and the Superintendent, Central Jail, Kota, is directed to release the petitioners Paras Ram and Ratan alias Ram Ratan, on parole for a period of twenty days in consonance with rule 9 of the Parole Rules, subject to just and proper conditions, which may be determined by him. 12. The Superintendent of Police (Rural), Kota, is further directed to provide full security to the petitioners during the parole period they shall be on parole. 13. A copy of this order be sent to the District Magistrate, Kota, as well as the Superintendent, Central Jail, Kota.Writ Petition allowed. *******