Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1108 (RAJ)

Mani Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2011-05-24

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner, who has been convicted for offence under Section 8/15 of N.D.P.S. Act and has been sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and has been imposed with a fine of Rs. 1 lack, has sought the first parole of twenty days under the Rajasthan Prisons (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958 ('the Parole Rules', for short). 2. However, the said parole has been denied ostensibly on the ground that while the report of the central Narcotics Control Bureau, jodhpur has been received, the jail Administration is yet to receive the reports of the District Magistrate, Churu and Superintendent of Police, Churu. The State, in its reply, has given an assurance that as soon as these two reports are received, the petitioner's case shall be considered for the first parole. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the reply filed by the State. 4. According to the jail Administration, as of 5.2.2011, the petitioner has already completed six years, four month and two days. Furthermore, the Jail Administration is waiting to receive the reports of District Magistrate, Churu and the Superintendent of Police, Churu. Till the said reports are received, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered by the Advisory Committee. 5. The grant of parole is part of the reformative theory of punishment. A parole is granted in order to encourage a convicted prisoner to reform himself to the point that he can return back to the society as a peace loving, law abiding citizen. Many a times, parole are not being granted by the jail Administration for lack of reports which are meant to be submitted by the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police. However, this inefficiency on part of the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police robs the convicted prisoner of his right of consideration under the Parole Rules. Since the denial of parole adversely affects the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police should be sensitive to the rights of a convicted prisoner. 6. Therefore, this Court directs to the District Magistrate, Churu and the Superintendent of Police, Churu to send their reports to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Bikaner within a period of two weeks. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Bikaner is directed to call a meeting of Advisory Committee within a period of two weeks thereafter. 6. Therefore, this Court directs to the District Magistrate, Churu and the Superintendent of Police, Churu to send their reports to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Bikaner within a period of two weeks. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Bikaner is directed to call a meeting of Advisory Committee within a period of two weeks thereafter. The Committee shall pass its order with regard to the grant of first parole of the petitioner within a period of two weeks thereafter. 7. With these directions, this petition is, hereby, disposed of.Petition disposed of. *******