Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1231 (RAJ)

Badru Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2007-07-04

R.S.CHAUHAN, SHIV KUMAR SHARMA

body2007
JUDGMENT 1. - This petition arises out of the decision of the District Parole Advisory Committee dated 18.10.2006 whereby the Committee has rejected the case of the petitioner for grant of his first regular parole. 2. The brief facts of the case are that vide judgment dated 11.5.2006, the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2 Jhunjhunu had against order dated 19.10.06 passed by Distt. Magistrate, Jhunjhunu. convicted the petitioner for offences under Secs. 148, 447/149, 323/149, 325/149, 326/149, 307/149, and 302/149 Indian Penal Code and has sentenced him to life imprisonment. As of 24.7.2007 the petitioner has admittedly completed 7 years, 6 months and 4 days of incarceration including jail remission earned by him. Since the petitioner had completed more than 1/4th of his sentence, and his conduct in jail was good, he was eligible for first regular parole under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958. Therefore, he had applied for parole under the said Rule. However, vide order dated 19.10.2006, because of the adverse reports of the S.P. and the District Social Welfare Officer, the Advisory Committee has rejected the case of the petitioner. Hence this petition before this Court. 3. Mr. R.S. Agarwal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently argued that the Advisory Committee has mechanically accepted the adverse report while ignoring the favourable report of the Superintendent, Central jail, Ajmer. Therefore, it is not an objective assessment of the case. 4. On the other hand, Mr. M.L. Goyal, 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 behaviour to convicted prisoners, parole system was introduced as far back as in 1958. By denying parole to en 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 petitioners. Hence the parole should not be denied in mechanical and callous manner. By denying parole to en 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 petitioners. 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 Social Welfare Officer. Infact, such reports are mechanically drawn up and are not based on any cogent investigation. Since the reform undergone by the prisoners has occurred infront of the Superintendent of jail, it is his report which is 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 Social Welfare Officer. 8. In the result, this petition is allowed and the Superintendent, Central Jail, Kota is directed to release the petitioner Badru Ram son of Shri Chokharam Mali, resident of Dardhawali Dhani, Distt. Jhunjhunu 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/l each and personal bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Kota. The Superintendent, Central jail is directed to inform the concerned Probation Officer to monitor the activities and whereabouts of the petitioner during his release on parole. The report of the Probation Officer shall be sent to the Superintendent, Central Jail and the report shall form part of the official record of the petitioner kept in the jail. The Superintendent, Central jail is directed to inform the concerned Probation Officer to monitor the activities and whereabouts of the petitioner during his release on parole. The report of the Probation Officer shall be sent to the Superintendent, Central Jail and the report shall form part of the official record of the petitioner kept in the jail. The petitioner is further directed to maintain peaceful and good behaviour during his sojourn and to report back to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ajmer on the expiry of 20th day from the date of his release.Petition allowed. *******