Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 698 (RAJ)

Anadi Lal Meena v. State of Rajasthan

2006-02-28

R.S.CHAUHAN, SHIV KUMAR SHARMA

body2006
Judgment R.S. Chauhan, J.-Cribbed, cabined and confined within the four walls of the Jail, yearning for liberty for a short period of 20 days, the petitioner had applied for the first parole under the Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958 (henceforth to be referred to as the Parole Rules for short). However, vide order dated 15.07.2005, the Advisory Committee constituted under the said Rules, rejected the case of the petitioner for first parole. Hence, this petition before us. 2. The brief facts of the case are that in 2001 the petitioner was involved in a murder case. Subsequently, the Sessions Judge, Bundi convicted and sentenced him to life imprisonment. So far the petitioner has completed a total period of six years, four months and eight days of incarceration including the remission period. Since, he was eligible for the grant of first parole for 20 days under Rule 9 of the Parole Rules, the petitioner applied for the same. The Advisory Committee called for the report of the Superintendent of Police, Bundi, vide report dated 12.09.2005, the Superintendent of Police Bundi informed the Advisory Committee that the petitioner was acquitted in another murder case. The State has filed an appeal before the High Court. The same is pending before the High Court. He further stated that there is every likelihood of breach of peace in case the petitioner were released. Therefore, on the ground that the police has submitted an adverse report, the Advisory Committee has rejected the petitioners case for being released on first parole. 3. Mr. Suresh Sahni, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the Parole Rules are beneficial piece of legislation. Therefore, they should be applied as liberally as possible. He has further argued that the pendency of the appeal cannot be a ground for non-granting of parole, specially when the appeal is against an order of acquittal. Moreover, the police has not given any reason for concluding that law and order problem would be caused in case the petitioner were released on parole. The Advisory Committee has accepted the police report as a gospel truth. Considering the fact that the petitioner has a right of consideration by the Advisory Committee, the consideration has to be objective and not subjective one. 4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. R.P. Kuldeep has argued that the petitioner cannot claim parole by way of right. Considering the fact that the petitioner has a right of consideration by the Advisory Committee, the consideration has to be objective and not subjective one. 4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. R.P. Kuldeep has argued that the petitioner cannot claim parole by way of right. Therefore, he has supported the impugned order. 5. We have heard the learned Counsels for parties and perused the impugned order. 6. Although incarceration of a person necessarily implies deprivation of his fundamental rights, but the fundamental rights are not completely obliterated. The twin rights of “life” and “personal liberty” continue to glow even in the dark corners of a prison. Realizing these twin aspects, the Parole Rules were created as a piece of social beneficial legislation for the benefit of the large number of convicted prisoners. Even when the convicted prisoner is serving a “term of imprisonment” or of “life imprisonment”, he does have a right of consideration of his case for parole. During the parole period personal liberty is restored for a limited period. Repeatedly, the Honble Supreme Court and this Court have held that parole serves three purposes; firstly it re-establishes the link between the prisoner and his family; secondly, it permits the prisoner to move freely in the mainstream of society; thirdly it is a motivational method to encourage the prisoner to reform himself during the period of incarceration. In fact, Rule 13 of the Parole Rules clearly states that parole should be used as a means to teach good behaviour to the prisoner. 7. Keeping these views in mind, both Honble Supreme Court and this Court have repeatedly held that the parole should be granted as liberally as possible. While considering the cases, the Advisory Committee should be alive to the constitutional mandate and to the philosophy which underlines the Parole Rules. 8. The prisoner has a right of consideration, the right is a substantive one and not in a illusory one. Consideration by the Advisory Committee has to be an objective one and not a subjective one. In catena of cases, this Court has held that the Advisory Committee should not ipse dixit accept the adverse report of the police. This Court has also held that the report of the Superintendent of the Jail is more important than the report of the Police officer. In catena of cases, this Court has held that the Advisory Committee should not ipse dixit accept the adverse report of the police. This Court has also held that the report of the Superintendent of the Jail is more important than the report of the Police officer. For, during the period of incarceration, it is the Superintendent of the Jail who observes the change in the convicted prisoner. Therefore, he is in a better position to inform the Advisory Committee about the behavioral change. 9. In the present case, the Advisory Committee has accepted the police report in toto without considering the fact that the police has merely stated a conclusion without revealing the premises on which the conclusion is based. Therefore, the order dated 15.07.2005 suffers from the virus of non-application of mind. The Advisory Committee has ignored the report of the Superintendent of the Jail. According to the record kept by the Jail Authorities, the petitioners conduct in the Jail was satisfactory. Considering the fact that the petitioner had already spent 1/4 of his sentence, considering the fact that his conduct in Jail was satisfactory, the twin requirements of Rule 9 of the Parole Rules were satisfied in the instant case. Hence, the Advisory Committee should have granted the benefit of parole to the petitioner. 10. In the result, while allowing this writ petition, we not only quash and set aside the order dated 15.07.2005, but also direct the Superintendent Central Jail, Kota to immediately release the petitioner, Anadi Lal Meena son of Moti Lal on parole for a period of 20 days, which shall commence from the date of his release, on such terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the Superintendent Central Jail, Kota.