Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1259 (RAJ)

RAMJI LAL ALIAS RAMJYA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

2007-07-06

R.S.CHAUHAN, SHIV KUMAR SHARMA

body2007
Judgment R. S. CHAUHAN, J. ( 1 ) CONVICTED and sentenced for offences under Sections 148, 302/149, 395/396, 376/149 and 323/149, ipc, having served 9 years, 6 months and 13 days, the petitioner had hoped for being released on first regular parole. However, vide order dated 29-3-2005, the Advisory committee dismissed the case of the petitioner for parole. Hence this petition before this Court. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are that vide judgment dated 12-8-2004, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the above mentioned offences. As of 25-4-2007, the petitioner has served the sentences of period 9 years, 6 months and 13 days including remission. Since he was eligible under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred as "rules of 1958"), he had applied for his first regular parole. However, the Advisory Committee rejected his application ostensibly on the ground that the superintendent of Police and the Social welfare Officer have submitted adverse reports against the petitioner. ( 3 ) MR. Lakhan Singh Tomar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently argued that the adverse reports of the Superintendent of Police and the Social Welfare Officer are not based on any cogent investigation but are mechanical in nature. Therefore, the Advisory Committee should not have ipse dixit accepted these reports. Instead, they should have considered the report of the Superintendent, Central Jail, ajmer as the reform undergone by the prisoners has occurred before his very eyes. ( 4 ) ON the other hand, Mr. M. L. Goyal, deputy Government Advocate, has supported the decision of the Advisory Committee. ( 5 ) WE have heard both the learned counsel 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 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 behavioural pattern of the prisoners. Hence the parole should not be denied in mechanical and callous manner. 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 behavioural pattern of the prisoners. Hence the parole should not be denied in mechanical and callous manner. Repeatedly, both the Honble 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 ipse dixit accept the adverse reports submitted by the police and the Social Welfare Officer. In fact, 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 is crucial for determining the grant or rejection of the parole. In the present case, the Superintendent, Central Jail has stated that the petitioners 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, Ajmer is directed to release the petitioner Ramji lal alias Ramjya son of Jagdish, by caste meena, resident of Sawalpura Sekhavtan, p. S. Ajeetgarh, Distt. Sikar 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, Ajmer. The petitioner is further directed to appear before the concerned Police Station-Ajeetgarh, distt. Sikar after every seven days during his furlough. In case he fails to do so, his parole shall stand automatically cancelled and he shall be arrested and brought back to the jail. The petitioner is further directed to appear before the concerned Police Station-Ajeetgarh, distt. Sikar after every seven days during his furlough. In case he fails to do so, his parole shall stand automatically cancelled and he shall be arrested and brought back to 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. The deputy Registrar (Judl.) is directed to send the certified copy of this order to the S. H. O. , PS-Ajeetgarh, Distt. Sikar immediately for compliance of this order. Petition allowed.