Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 250 (RAJ)

Sripat v. State of Rajasthan

2007-02-05

R.S.CHAUHAN, SHIV KUMAR SHARMA

body2007
Judgment 1. The petitioner is challenging the order dated 110.2006 passed by the Advisory Committee whereby the Advisory Committee has rejected his case for first regular parole under Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958 (henceforth to be referred to as "the Rules of 1958", for short). 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that in the year 1999, the petitioner was involved in a criminal case for offences under Sections 364-A, 365 and 120 IPC. Subsequently, he was convicted for the said offences by the District & Sessions Judge, Karauli and was sentenced to life imprisonment vide order dated 17.09.2001. According to the prison record, the petitioner has completed seven years, two months and seven days of incarceration. Since the petitioner was eligible for grant of first regular parole, he applied for the same under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958. However, vide order dated 110.2006, his case for first parole was rejected. Hence, this writ petition before this Court. 3. Mr. Satyapal Poshwal, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently argued that the petitioners case has been rejected ostensibly on the ground that the Superintendent of Police and the Social Welfare Officer had submitted an adverse report against him. Moreover, according to the Jail Authorities, the petitioner has not been working in the Jail factory. However, according to the learned Counsel, these are not valid grounds for rejecting the first parole. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Ashok Sharma, Dy. G.A. the learned Counsel for the State, has argued that these are sufficient reasons for rejecting the claim for parole of the petitioner. 5. We have heard the Counsels for the parties and have perused the impugned order. 6. Every one is born free. Freedom resides in the soul of each person. To be cribbed, cabined and confined within the strong walls of a prison, leads to a feeling of suffocation and restlessness. The era of dumping people in jail and forgetting about their existence is over. The new penal philosophy is not incarcerate, but to reform the convicted prisoners. The aim of the prison administration is not just to punish, but to improve the convicted prisoner to the extent that he/she may be brought back into the society as a contributory member. It is with this aim that the Rules of 1958 were framed. The new penal philosophy is not incarcerate, but to reform the convicted prisoners. The aim of the prison administration is not just to punish, but to improve the convicted prisoner to the extent that he/she may be brought back into the society as a contributory member. It is with this aim that the Rules of 1958 were framed. Rule 13 of the Rules of 1958 clearly states that grant of parole shall be used as an occasion to inculcate good behavior among the convicted prisoner. In catena of cases, the Honble Supreme Court has repeatedly pointed out that the purpose of parole is to instill good behavior, to keep the family link alive and to ensure that the convicted prisoner is brought peacefully back into the society at large. Repeatedly this Court has also held that in order to know the change in the convicted prisoner, it is the report of the Superintendent of the Jail, which is most important. For, it is he who can inform the Advisory Committee about the change brought about in the prisoner. Therefore, an adverse police report or an adverse report by Social Welfare Officer is insignificant. Thus, the Advisory Committee was not justified in rejecting the petitioners case on the basis of adverse police report and the report of the Social Welfare Officer. 7. A long incarceration breeds indifference and frustration amongst the prison population. Therefore, they are likely to commit a minor mistake. But a minor mistake would not dis-entitle a prisoner from regular parole. His brief sojourn from the jail, his brief interaction with the family may convince him to observe better discipline in future. By keeping him confined within the prison walls, walls made out of stone and steel, one does not encourage a prisoner to reform himself . Therefore, in catena of cases, the Honble Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that the benefit of parole should be granted as liberally as possible. 8. In the result, we allow this petition and quash and set aside the order dated 19.06.2006. The Superintendent of Central Jail, Jaipur is directed to release Sripat S/o Tunda on first regular parole for 20 days provided that the petitioner submits two sureties of 30,000/- each alongwith a personal bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Sewar, Bharatpur. The Superintendent of Central Jail, Jaipur is directed to release Sripat S/o Tunda on first regular parole for 20 days provided that the petitioner submits two sureties of 30,000/- each alongwith a personal bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Sewar, Bharatpur. The petitioner is further directed to return to the Central Jail on the completion of 20 days from the date of his release from the prison. He is further directed to maintain peace and tranquility during his parole period.