Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1222 (RAJ)

Bal Kishan v. State of Rajasthan

2007-07-03

R.S.CHAUHAN, SHIV KUMAR SHARMA

body2007
JUDGMENT 1. - Convicted of offences under Secs. 302, 323/34 and 324/24 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and sentenced to life imprisonment, having served 1/4th of sentence, the petitioner was hoping that he would be released on first regular parole under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'Rules of 1958'). However, his hopes were dashed when the Advisory Committee in its meeting held on 16.3.10027, rejected his case for grant of first regular parole. Hence, this petition before us. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Chhabra had convicted the petitioner for the aforementioned offences. Till 14.5.2007, the petitioner had completed a period of 6 years, 8 months and 4 days of incarceration including Jail and State remission. Since he had completed 1/4th of his sentence, he filed an application before he Superintendent, Central Jail, Kota and prayed that his case for parole may be placed before the Advisory Committee under the Rules of 1958. His case was, indeed, placed before the District Parole Advisory Committee. However, the Superintendent of Police, Baran and the SDM, Chhabra submitted adverse reports against the petitioner. Therefore, considering these two adverse reports, the Advisory Committee rejected the petitioner's case as aforementioned. 3. Mr. Santosh Kumar Jain, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently argued that without considering the favourable report of the Superintendent, Central Jail and as a knee jerk reaction to the adverse reports submitted by the S.P. and the S.D.M., the Advisory Committee has rejected the petitioner's case. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from non-application of mind. Secondly, the adverse reports are neither based on any investigation, nor on any cogent evidence. But they are mechanical in nature. Therefore, the Advisory Committee should not have accepted these two adverse reports. Thirdly, the petitioner's conduct in the jail has been good. Therefore, under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958, he is eligible for grant of parole. 4. On the other hand, Mr. B.K. Sharma, Deputy Government Advocate, has supported the impugned order and the rejection of the petitioner's case for grant of parole. 5. We have heard both the learned counsels and have perused the impugned order. 6. Parole is an essential ingredient of the reformative theory of punishment. 4. On the other hand, Mr. B.K. Sharma, Deputy Government Advocate, has supported the impugned order and the rejection of the petitioner's case for grant of parole. 5. We have heard both the learned counsels and have perused the impugned order. 6. Parole is an essential ingredient of the reformative theory of punishment. The aim and object of incarcerating the convicted person is not just to punish him, but more importantly to reform him during the period of imprisonment. In order to teach good behavior to convicted prisoners, parole system was introduced as far back as in 1958. By denying parole to an eligible convicted prisoner, the prisoner is not only demoralized, but also demotivated from reforming himself. Therefore, the denial of parole has an adverse impact on the psychology and behavioral pattern of the prisoners. Hence the parole should not be denied in mechanical and callous manner. Repeatedly, both the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court have encouraged a liberal grant of parole to the prisoners. The grant of parole has served three important purposes; firstly, it is an incentive to a'prisoner to reform himself; secondly, it permits the family ties to be maintained during the long period of imprisonment; thirdly, it slowly brings the convicted prisoner back into the mainstream of society. Keeping these three aims in mind, the Jail Administration should liberally grant parole. 7. Repeatedly, this court has directed the Advisory Committee not to ipsi dixit accept the adverse reports submitted by the police and the SDM. Infact, such reports are mechanically drawn up and are not based on any cogent investigation. Since the reform undergone by the prisoners has occurred in front of the Superintendent of Jail, it is his report which should be treated as crucial for determining the grant or rejection of the parole..In the present case, the Superintendent, Central Jail has stated that the petitioner's conduct in the jail has been good. Therefore, the Advisory Committee has failed to appreciate the report of the Superintendent, Central jail in proper perspective. The Advisory Committee has erred in being swayed by the adverse report of the police and the SDM. 8. Therefore, the Advisory Committee has failed to appreciate the report of the Superintendent, Central jail in proper perspective. The Advisory Committee has erred in being swayed by the adverse report of the police and the SDM. 8. In the result, this petition is allowed and the Superintendent, Central Jail, Kota is directed to release the petitioner Bal Kishan s/o Prem Narayan B/c Meena for a period of 20 days (Twenty days) as his first regular parole under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958, provided the petitioner submits two sureties of Rs. 20,000/- each and personal bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Kota. The petitioner is further directed to maintain peaceful and good behaviour during his sojourn and to report back to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Kota on the expiry of 20th day from the date of his release.Petition allowed. *******