Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 154 (RAJ)

Hari Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2013-01-17

GOVIND MATHUR, VIJAY BISHNOI

body2013
JUDGMENT GOVIND MATHUR, J. By judgment dated 3-12-1998 learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur convicted the petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced for life term imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In pursuant to the conviction recorded and sentence awarded the petitioner has served sentence for a period of 18 years, 9 months and 23 days including jail remission for a period of 4 years, 28 days as on 31-8-2012. 2. Wife of the petitioner preferred a petition for writ (DB Parole Writ Petition No. 8829/2012) to have permanent parole for present petitioner as per provisions of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1958") and that petition came to be disposed of on 26-9-2012 with a direction to the State Level Parole Committee to consider and decide the case of the convict prisoner for grant of permanent parole within a period of one month. In pursuant to the direction aforesaid the State Level Parole Committee in its meeting dated 29-10-2012 examined case of the petitioner for permanent parole and denied for the same as he absconded from State custody on 2-11-2008. Being aggrieved by the same, this petition for writ is preferred. 3. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that while remaining in State custody at Open Air Camp, Jodhpur the petitioner absconded on 2-11-2008 but was arrested on 15-11-2008 by the Station House Officer, Police Station, Mandore. For the absconding he faced trial for an offence punishable under Section 224 Indian Penal Code and on being convicted, he suffered six months imprisonment, which he has already served. According to counsel for the petitioner after remaining in prison for more than 14 years and also after undergoing six months imprisonment aforesaid, the case of the petitioner deserves to be considered sympathetically with a view to achieve the object of the Rules of 1958. 4. While opposing the petition for writ, it is urged by learned Government Advocate that the petitioner's conduct on the count of his absconding from State custody disentitles him to have extension of permanent parole as per the Rules of 1958. 5. Heard counsel for the parties. 6. 4. While opposing the petition for writ, it is urged by learned Government Advocate that the petitioner's conduct on the count of his absconding from State custody disentitles him to have extension of permanent parole as per the Rules of 1958. 5. Heard counsel for the parties. 6. True it is, the petitioner absconded on 2-11-2008 from open Air Camp, Jodhpur and was arrested on 15-11-2008 and for that act he was subjected to a trial in which he was convicted and sentenced, but that is not an ineligibility for awarding permanent parole for all times to come. The object of the Rules of 1958 is to bring a convict prisoner in main stream of the society and to rehabilitate him with society after remaining in prison for a huge term. A human being by nature requires liberty for his overall development and such development is possible only by staying in society. The imprisonment is an exception due to some anti-cocial conduct of a human being. Such kind of exception cannot be made perpetual without having exceptional circumstances. As such, lodging of a convict prisoner in society is necessary and the concept of parole is an effort for such lodging, therefore, while considering a case of permanent parole, the authorities competent must keep in mind the objects and aims of this concept subject to the applicable statute. 7. In the instant case though the petitioner absconded from State prison but his conduct otherwise is not causing any injury to the society. No apprehension is also disclosed that his release on parole shall cause any injury to the social fabric and its normal peace. As such, we are of the opinion that if the benefit of parole is extended to him, then that will serve the object sought to be achieved under the Rules of 1958. 8. The petition for writ, thus, deserves acceptance. Accordingly, the same is allowed. The respondents are directed to release the petitioner on permanent parole as per the provisions of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 provided he furnishes two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each and a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the satisfaction of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur. Necessary order to release the petitioner on permanent parole is required to be passed on or before 31-1-2013. Petition allowed.