Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 430 (RAJ)

Mohabat Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2012-02-13

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - A letter has been received by this court from Mohabat Singh, convicted prisoner of Central Jail, Jodhpur, which has been treated as a letter petition. Vide order dated 10.01.2012, this Court had appointed Ms. Anita Gehlot as amicus curiae to argue the case on behalf of Mohabat Singh. 2. Ms. Anita Gehlot has contended that Mohabat Singh was convicted for offences under Sections 342, 324, 323, 304(1) IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/St Act and was sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment, vide judgment dated 23.01.2005 passed by the Special Judge, (SC/ST Act) Cases Sirohi. The learned Judge had acquitted him for offence under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act. So far the petitioner has completed eight years, eight months and eleven days. During this period of incarceration, he was released on interim bail for twenty days. He has further released on emergent parole in 2006. He has also completed his three regular paroles under the Rajasthan Prisioners (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958. During his bail period and during his furlough, he had maintained peace and tranquility, and followed the conditions of the bail and parole. He had not created any law and order problem. Since the petitioner was eligible for being released on permanent parole under Rule 9 of the Rules, he had applied for the same. However, vide order dated 28/29.06.2011, the State Level Parole Committee has rejected his case ostensibly on the ground that the reports of the District Magistrate, Sirohi and of S.P., Sirohi were against him. Subsequently, the said order was sent to the State Government. Vide order dated 09.08.2011, the recommendation of the Parole Committee has been accepted by the State Government. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Anita Gehlot, once the petitioner was granted interim bail and was released on three regular paroles, the observations made by the District Magistrate, Sirohi and by the S.P., Sirohi are unfounded. According to both of them, in case the petitioner were to be released on permanent parole, it would further create difficulties between the family of the accused-petitioner and the family of the complainant. However, there is no evidence to support the conclusion drawn by the District Magistrate, Sirohi and S.P., Sirohi. Moreover, in catena of cases, this Court has held that such a report should not be accepted ipsi dixi by the Committee. However, there is no evidence to support the conclusion drawn by the District Magistrate, Sirohi and S.P., Sirohi. Moreover, in catena of cases, this Court has held that such a report should not be accepted ipsi dixi by the Committee. Furthermore, she has drawn the attention of this Court towards the report of the Social Welfare Officer who has clearly stated that even on earlier occasion, when the petitioner was released by the parole committee, no difficulty was created by the petitioner with the family of the complainant. Therefore, even if he were to be released on permanent parole, no law and order problem would be created. Thus, the Social Welfare Officer had clearly recommended the case of the petitioner for permanent parole. However, on the reports of District Magistrate, Sirohi and S.P., Sirohi, the case of the petitioner for permanent parole was rejected. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, the learned Public Prosecutor, has contended that relying on the reports submitted by the District Magistrate, Sirohi and S.P., Sirohi, a decision was taken by the parole committee. Thus, the decision is legally justified. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. A bare perusal of the report of the District Magistrate clearly reveals that the District Magistrate has claimed that the release of the petitioner would create difficulties for the family of the complainant. But, he has not given any reasons for his conclusion. Similarly, the S.P., Sirohi has also claimed that the complainants family would feel threatened, in case, the petitioner were to be released. However, according to the Social Welfare Officer, on the previous occasion, when the petitioner was released on parole, he did not create any difficulties for the family of the complainant. Therefore, according to Social Welfare Officer, there is no possibility of peace being disturbed. 7. In catena of cases, both the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, have held that adverse report, bereft of any evidence, should not be accepted, ipsi dixi, by the parole committee. This Court has further held that report of the Superintendent of Jail and the report of the Social Welfare Officer are the two most important reports. 7. In catena of cases, both the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, have held that adverse report, bereft of any evidence, should not be accepted, ipsi dixi, by the parole committee. This Court has further held that report of the Superintendent of Jail and the report of the Social Welfare Officer are the two most important reports. Through the former report the committee has the benefit of seeing if the convicted prisoner has reformed himself or not during the period of incarceration; in the latter report, the Social Welfare Officer inquires from the villagers, or from the family of the complainant, to see what affect would be caused in case the convicted prisoner were released on parole/permanent parole. 8. In the present case, without assigning any cogent reason, the Committee ignored the report of the Social Welfare Officer and of the Superintendent, Central Jail. Thus, the parole committee has passed a nonspeaking order. 9. A bare perusal of the order dated 09.08.2011 clearly reveals that the State Government has accepted the recommendation of the parole committee in a mechanical manner. The State Government has not bothered to analyse the parole committees recommendation. Therefore, the order dated 09.08.2011 qua the petitioner is legally unsustainable. 10. Hence, this court has no other option, but to set aside the order dated 28/29.06.2011 passed by the State Level Parole Committee and the order dated 09.08.2011 passed by the State Government qua the petitioner. 11. In the result, this petition is allowed and the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur is directed to release Mohabat Singh S/o Aut Singh, by caste Rajput, resident of Police Thana Palri, District Sirohi on permanent parole provided the petitioner submits a personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- with two sureties of the same amount to the satisfaction of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur. 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 behavior.Petition Allowed. *******