Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1804 (RAJ)

Santosh @ Maya v. State of Rajasthan

2012-08-22

GOVIND MATHUR, R.S.CHAUHAN

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - A woman convicted prisoner, Santosh @ Maya, has sent a letter to this Court which has been treated as a letter petition by this Court. 2. According to the petitioner, she and her husband-have been convicted for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. She has already completed nine years and six months of her actual sentence. Since both she and her husband are incarcerated in jail, therefore, their children are surviving as orphans. Since she was eligible for the first parole, she had applied for the same. Vide order dated 27.2.2012, she was granted the first parole of twenty days. However, the parole committee has directed her to furnish two sureties of Rs. 75,000/- each and a personal bond of Rs. 75,000/-. However, according to her, since both she and her husband are in jail, the family has been reduced to an animal existence. There is no one in her family who can look after her children. There is no one in her family, who can procure two sureties for such a high amount. Therefore, she has prayed that requirement of two sureties be dispensed with and her personal bond may be reduced to a reasonable amount. 3. The learned Additional Govt. Advocate has fairly admitted the fact that the petitioner has completed a total sentence of eleven years, one month and seven days including jail remission as of 30.6.2012. However, he has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. 4. heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. Although incarceration of a person necessarily implies deprivation of his fundamental rights, but the fundamental rights are not completely obliterated. The twin rights of "life" and "personal liberty" continue to glow even in the dark corners of a prison. Realising these twin aspects, the Parole Rules were created as a piece of social beneficial legislation for the benefit of the large number of convicted prisoners. Even when the convicted prisoner is serving a "term of imprisonment" or of "life imprisonment", he does have a right of consideration of his case for parole. During the parole period personal liberty is restored for a limited period. Even when the convicted prisoner is serving a "term of imprisonment" or of "life imprisonment", he does have a right of consideration of his case for parole. During the parole period personal liberty is restored for a limited period. Repeatedly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court have held that parole serves three purposes; firstly, it re-establishes the link between the prisoner and his family; secondly, it permits the prisoner to move freely in the mainstream of society; thirdly, it is a motivational method to encourage the prisoner to reform himself during the period of incarceration. In fact, Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958 ('the Rules', for short) clearly states that parole should be used as a means to teach good behaviour to the prisoner. 6. Keeping these views in mind, both Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court have repeatedly held that the parole should be granted as liberally as possible. While considering the cases, the Advisory Committee should be alive to the constitutional mandate and to the philosophy which underlines the Parole Rules. 7. Under the Rules, the convicted prisoners have the right of consideration of being granted the parole in case they where to fulfill the eligibility requirement laid down by the Rules. The right of consideration is a substantive right. It cannot be converted into an illusory right by imposition of onerous condition. The District Parole Committee/Advisory Committee have to keep in mind the stark reality of this country where poverty stalks the land. However, poverty cannot deprive a convicted prisoner of the fundamental right to life - the right to life would include the right to associate with one's family and, if found eligible, to be released on parole. After all, parole is means to restore the fundamental right of movement and is a means to restore the family ties. Therefore, the District Parole Committee/Advisory Committee should not impose the onerous requirement of furnishing of two sureties of a very high amount. They should be sensitive to the economic condition of the convicted prisoner. 8. Therefore, this Court modifies the order dated 27.2.2012 qua the petitioner, and dispenses with the requirement of furnishing of two sureties of Rs. 75,000/- each and further reduces the requirement of personal bond from Rs. 75,000/- to Rs. 20,000/-. In case, the petitioner furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 8. Therefore, this Court modifies the order dated 27.2.2012 qua the petitioner, and dispenses with the requirement of furnishing of two sureties of Rs. 75,000/- each and further reduces the requirement of personal bond from Rs. 75,000/- to Rs. 20,000/-. In case, the petitioner furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 20,000/- to the satisfaction of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur, then the petitioner, Santosh @ Maya, shall be released on her first parole of twenty days. She is directed to maintain peace and tranquility during her furlough and to report back to the Central Jail, Jodhpur after completion of twentieth day of her first parole.The petition is, hereby, allowed.Petition allowed. *******