Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 94 (RAJ)

Prem Prakash @ Dhara Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2012-01-06

MEENA V.GOMBER, RAGHUVENDRA S.RATHORE

body2012
Hon'ble RATHORE, J.—This petition for parole has been filed by the accused petitioner with a prayer that the order dated 19.10.2011 passed by the District Parole Advisory Committee, Sikar be quashed and set aside. Further it has prayed that he may be released on regular parole for a period of 30 days. 2. The accused petitioner, herein, has been convicted by the learned Additional District Judge (Special Judge), (Women Atrocities and Dowry Cases), Jaipur City, Jaipur vide his judgment dated 24.8.2006 in Sessions Case No.16/2005 for the offences u/s 498-A, 304-B and 302 IPC and sentenced for life imprisonment. Thereafter the accused petitioner preferred an appeal (D.B. Criminal Appeal No.945/2006) before the High Court and the same is still pending adjudication. 3. The learned counsel for the accused petitioner has submitted that the District Parole Advisory Committee, Sikar has erred in passing the impugned order dated 19.10.2011. He has submitted that the mother of the accused petitioner is ill and as such he is entitled for grant of second parole. It is also submitted that the accused petitioner was granted first regular parole on 20.7.2009 and his conduct during the said period was satisfactory. The learned counsel has submitted that even if no valid reason is given by an accused for proceeding on regular parole, he is entitled for the same under the Parole Rules of 1958. In support of the submission, he has placed reliance on the case of Ramji Lal @ Ramjya vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (2007(4) WLC 507). 4. On the other hand, the learned Dy. Government Counsel has reiterated the averments made in the reply to the writ petition and submitted that the order dated 19.10.2011 passed by the District Parole Advisory Committee, Sikar is just and proper, for the simple reason that the Superintendent of Police of the District as well the Social Welfare Officer, in whose jurisdiction the accused petitioner wants to spend his period of parole, have not recommended for his release. He has also submitted that both the authorities have mentioned that there are two brothers of the petitioner to look after his mother. However, the Assistant Director, Social Welfare Department, Sikar has specifically mentioned that no document in respect of ailment of the mother of the accused has been furnished before him and her general condition does not show that she is sick. However, the Assistant Director, Social Welfare Department, Sikar has specifically mentioned that no document in respect of ailment of the mother of the accused has been furnished before him and her general condition does not show that she is sick. Therefore, the ground given by the petitioner for his release on parole is false. In such view of the matter, the learned Public Prosecution has submitted that there is no error in the impugned order passed by the learned District Parole Advisory Committee, Sikar and the petitioner may not be released on parole. 5. In order to appreciate the submissions made by the counsels for the parties, we deem it appropriate to first consider the relevant provisions of law as given under the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958. The extract of the relevant rules is reproduced as follows : 3. Application for release on parole – A prisoner sentenced to imprisonment for not less than one year may, subject to exceptionally good behaviour, be allowed by the Superintendent Jail, in which he is confined, to submit application for parole in triplicate in Form I. 4. The Superintendent, Jail to forward the application to the District Magistrate _ The Superintendent of Jail concerned will enter the application in a register in Form II and will put his remarks on the application regarding condition of release and the prisoners conduct in the Jail etc. on the application of the prisoner and would forward one copy of it in original to the District Magistrate of the District in whose jurisdiction the prisoner wants to spend his parole period and one copy of the application will be sent to the Probation Officer. The District Magistrate shall enter the application in a register in form III. 5. District Magistrate may reject the application or forward the same to the (appropriate Committee) – (a) After consulting the Probation Officer where appointed and if felt necessary the Superintendent Police of the District Magistrate concerned will give his remarks, whether the convict in question should be released on Parole or not. In case the District Magistrate raises no objection to let off the prisoner on parole, he would send all the papers in original to the (State Committee or District Committee as the case may be) for orders stating the conditions on which the prisoner may be released on parole. In case the District Magistrate raises no objection to let off the prisoner on parole, he would send all the papers in original to the (State Committee or District Committee as the case may be) for orders stating the conditions on which the prisoner may be released on parole. In case the District Magistrate dis-approves of the release, the application will be sent to the Superintendent Jail concerned, stating the reasons of disapproval. (b) When the (State Committee / District Committee) receives the recommendation of the District Magistrate, it may consult the Presiding Judge of the Court before or by which the conviction was had or confined under (section 432 of the Act), and may accept or reject the application. 9. Parole period – A prisoner, who has completed with remission, if any (one -forth) of his sentence and subject to good conduct in the Jail, may be released on Ist parole for 20 days including days of journey to home and back, and for 30 days on 2nd parole provided his behaviour has been good during the Ist parole and for 40 days on third parole provided his behaviour has been good during the second parole. If during the third parole also the prisoner has behaved well and his character has been exceedingly well and if the prisoner's conduct has been such that he is not likely to relapse into crime, his case may be recommended to the Government through the (State Committee) for permanent release on parole on such conditions as deemed fit by the Superintendent Jail and the District Magistrate concerned; the chief condition among them being that if the prisoner while on parole commits any offence or abets, directly or indirectly, commissions of any offence, he has to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence in addition to any sentence imposed upon him by reason of such an offence. In case the permanent release on parole is rejected, the prisoner will be eligible for release on parole for 40 days every year subject to the same conditions for the remaining period of his sentence : (Provided that cases of prisoners who have been sentenced to imprisonment for life, for an offence for which death penalty is one of the punishments provided by law or who have been sentenced to death but this sentence has been commuted under Section 433 of Code of Criminal Procedure into one of life imprisonment shall not be placed before the State Committee for permanent release on parole unless he has served 14 years of imprisonment excluding remission, but including the period of detention passed during enquiry, investigation or trial. Such prisoners may be released on parole for 40 days every year for the remaining period of their sentence subject to the conditions stated above.) 9A. Parole in Emergent Cases – In Emergent cases the Superintendent of Jail shall grant parole up to a period of 7 days only subject to confirmation by the Inspector General of Prisons, and for a period of not more than 15 days by the Inspector General of Prisons.) 13. Aim of parole to encourage good conduct – The grant of parole should be regarded as occasion to encourage good conduct and it shall not be claimed by prisoners as a matter of right. 6. A look to the aforesaid provisions clearly shows that when a parole is being sought by an accused, he has to submit an application to the Superintendent of Jail who shall enter it in a Register, maintained by him for the said purpose and then put his remarks regarding the condition of release and conduct of the prisoner in Jail. Thereafter one copy of the said application, in original, shall be sent to the District Magistrate of the District in whose jurisdiction the prisoner wants to spend his parole period and another copy will be sent to the Probation Officer. The District Magistrate will put his remarks as to whether the convict in question should be released on Parole or not. In case the District Magistrate raises no objection to let off the prisoner on parole, he would send all the papers in original to the State committee or District Committee. The District Magistrate will put his remarks as to whether the convict in question should be released on Parole or not. In case the District Magistrate raises no objection to let off the prisoner on parole, he would send all the papers in original to the State committee or District Committee. In case the District Magistrate dis-approves of the release, the application shall be sent to the Superintendent of Jail stating the reasons of disapproval. 7. In view of the above, it is ample clear that release of a prisoner on parole has to be on some ground and that too has to be verified by District Magistrate in whose jurisdiction the accused wants to spend the period of his parole, for which informations/recommendations are to be obtained from the Superintendent of Police and the Social Welfare Department of the area. Instant case is a one where the ground for release on parole has been found to be incorrect and false and it is for the said reason that the District Committee has rejected the request made by the petitioner for his release on parole. A grant of parole cannot and should not be claimed as a matter of right by a prisoner. Apart from it, it would not be out of place to mention here that the appeal filed by the accused petitioner against his order of conviction and sentence is still pending before the High Court. In such view of the matter, the question which crops up is as to whether a prisoner should first exhaust the remedy available to him before the judicial form under the Criminal Procedure Code, for his release for a short period on account of the illness of his mother or he can avail the remedy on the administrative / executive side under the Prisoners Parole Rules of 1958. However, we need not go into the detail of this question because in the instant case, the ground given by the accused petitioner for release on parole is found to be false. 8. In our considered opinion, parole to prisoner is to be granted under the Rules of 1958 after calling of reports by the District Magistrate from the authorities, in whose jurisdiction he is to spend the period of parole, with regard to the ground given, the law & order situation, the present attitudes of victim / complainant party etc. 8. In our considered opinion, parole to prisoner is to be granted under the Rules of 1958 after calling of reports by the District Magistrate from the authorities, in whose jurisdiction he is to spend the period of parole, with regard to the ground given, the law & order situation, the present attitudes of victim / complainant party etc. Thereafter the District Committee is to consider the application for release on parole, in accordance to the relevant rules. Even before us, no material has been placed by the petitioner so as to satisfy that his mother is ill. As stated above, the petitioner is already having two other brothers who can look after his mother. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any substance in this petition for release on parole and it deserves to be rejected. 10. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.