Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 684 (RAJ)

Govinda Verma v. State of Rajasthan

2020-11-02

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

body2020
JUDGMENT : Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. 1. The petitioner had moved this Criminal Writ Petition seeking emergent parole under Rule 10A of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1958) which provides as under:- 10-A (i) Notwithstanding the provision of rule 3.4.5.9 and 10 in emergent cases, involving humanitarian consideration viz. (1) critical condition on account of illness of any close relations i.e. father, mother, wife, husband, children, brother or unmarried sister; (2) death of any such close relation; (3) serious damage to life or property from any natural calamity; and (4) (Downloaded on 10/12/2020 at 10:37:43 AM) married of a prisoner, his/her parents are not alive. A Prisoner may be released on parole for a period not exceeding 7 days by the Superintendent of the Jail and for a period not exceeding 15 days by the Inspector General of Prisons (District Magistrate) on such terms and conditions as they may consider necessary to impose for the security of the prisoner including a guarantee for his return to the jail, acceptance or execution whereof would be a condition precedent to the release of such prisoner on parole. (i-a) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, where a pregnant woman prisoner applies for parole to have her delivery outside the prison, the Director General-cum-Inspector General of Prisons may grant parole to such a woman prisoner for a period not exceeding forty five days on such terms or conditions as he may consider necessary to impose for the security of the prisoner including a guarantee for her return to jail, acceptance or execution whereof shall be a condition precedent to the release of such prisoner on parole: Provided that no prisoner shall be granted or released on parole under this sub-rule, if, in the opinion of the Director General-cum-Inspector General of Prisons, the prisoner is under high security risk or is undergoing sentence for committing a grave offence. (ii) A copy of the order for release of prisoners on parole shall be endorsed to the next higher authority giving full circumstances under which the parole has been allowed. In case the next higher authority does not approve the grant of parole, he may ask the authority granting the parole to revoke the same who shall act accordingly. 2. (ii) A copy of the order for release of prisoners on parole shall be endorsed to the next higher authority giving full circumstances under which the parole has been allowed. In case the next higher authority does not approve the grant of parole, he may ask the authority granting the parole to revoke the same who shall act accordingly. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that delivery of the petitioner's wife was to take place in between 29.9.2020 to 8.10.2020 and therefore, he moved this criminal writ petition on 11.9.2020 seeking one month parole under Rule 10A as noted above. However this case could not be taken up by the Court for reasons best known. 3. Reply has been filed. 4. It has been informed that the petitioner's wife has already given birth to a child baby boy on 28.9.2020. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on judgment passed by the Division Bench in case of Tofan Mal vs. State of Rajasthan 2016 (2) WLC (Raj.) UC 604 wherein the Division Bench granted 30 days emergent parole for attending mother and child. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is also having new born child and may be therefore given emergent parole for 30 days. 6. Learned PP opposes and submits that such precedent ought not be laid down as there can be several cases where child may be born to imprisoned person and on this aspect there is no such concept of paternity parole. Rule 10-A of the Rules of 1958 cannot be extended to mean cases where a child is born to a person. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions. 8. The examples laid down under Rule 10-A of the Rules of 1958 cannot be said to be conclusive and are only illustrative. The essential aspect for emergent parole is to see if there is an involvement of humanitarian consideration. A new born child needs the warmth of the mother and also the care of his father. Human touch is that little snippet of physical and emotional affection that doesn't take much from the one who gives it but can make a huge difference to the one who receives it. A man is not complete until he has seen the baby he has made. Human touch is that little snippet of physical and emotional affection that doesn't take much from the one who gives it but can make a huge difference to the one who receives it. A man is not complete until he has seen the baby he has made. It therefore calls for a humanitarian intervention to release a person on parole so that he can establish that emotional and physical connect with his child and the mother creating an edifice of family. State Government has already laid down the rules granting leave to employees as paternity leave Division Bench of this Court also took such considerations and passed orders releasing person on emergent parole for 30 days. 9. The contentions of learned counsel for the State that the such orders would create a bad precedent and all incarcerated persons may demand emergent parole on birth of new born in their family, is an argument noted to be rejected. Of course humanitarian considerations form part of leading right to life though for an imprisoned person is subject to orders passed as against him, however, there are certain inherent basic human rights which are required to be maintained even for an imprisoned person. 10. Keeping in view judgment passed in Tofan Mal (supra) and taking into consideration the provisions of Rule 10-A (1), I am inclined to allow this criminal writ petition and direct the Superintendent, Central Jail Sewar, Bharatpur to release the petitioner namely, Govind Verma S/o Shri Mangalchand Verma on emergent parole for a period of 15 days from 4.11.2020 to 18.11.2020, which shall commence from the date of his release i.e. 04.11.2020 upon furnishing his personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Sewar, Bharatpur with the stipulation that he shall surrender himself and return back to the Central Jail, Sewar, Bharatpur on completion of parole period. He shall maintain peace and tranquility during the period of parole which will include journey period also. In case, he fails to surrender on the stipulated day, the jail authority shall proceed in accordance with law.