Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SIKRI, ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.
ASFAQ – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10464 OF 2017 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 16803 OF 2017)
Decided On : 11-09-2017
(b) Words and Phrases – Parole and furlough – Nature and differences stated – Both provisions providing for affording the prisoners an opportunity to solve their personal and family problems and to enable them to maintain their links with society – Tendency of the convict to commit crie or reformation is the decisive factor for granting or refusing parole or furlough. (Para 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16)
(2006) 4 SCC 776; (2000) 3 SCC 394 – Referred
(c) Words and phrases – Hardened criminal – Committing crime as a habit or way of life – Necessarily tending to commit crimes time and again – Prisoners incarcerated for long time and not considered highly dangerous or prejudicial to the public peace and tranquillity can be granted temporary parole except in case of serious offence – Prisoners also have fundamental rights, though restricted by imprisonment – Rules framed in 1955 need updating. (Para 19, 20, 23)
(1980) 3 SCC 488; (1978) 1 SCC 248; (1978) 4 SCC 104 – Relied upon
(d) Administration of justice – Criminal justice – Appellant life convict under TADA – Application for release on parole – Rejected by authorities – Authorities strongly apprehending, upon release of appellant on parole, untoward incidents in the society or even among unsocial elements and threatening or physical harm to those deposing against him – Authorities rejecting application after considering all aspects – No error. (Para 26)
Facts of the case:
Serial bomb blasts took place in five trains on December 06, 1993 at the behest of certain miscreants on the first anniversary of the Babri Masjid demolition. As per the allegations of the prosecution, a conspirational meeting was held in this behalf in Lucknow a couple of months before, to carry out the aforesaid operations. Six separate First Information Reports (FIRs) were registered where this bomb blast had taken place, namely, at Kota, Allahabad, Kanpur, Gujarat, Malkajgiri and Karjat. Five of these FIRs were clubbed together and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, the provisions of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 were also invoked. The appellant herein was one of the accused persons and one of the allegations levelled against him was that he had supplied explosive material to accused No.1 for which he was paid money by the said accused. The CBI Court convicted the appellant, along with others, was convicted under TADA and awarded life imprisonment.
In this appeal, the issue pertains to grant of parole to the appellant.
Finding of the Court:
There is no error in refusing parole to the appellant.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Facts of the Case: The case involves a life convict who was convicted under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) for involvement in a series of bomb blasts that occurred on December 6, 1993, in multiple locations, which were linked to conspiracy and terrorist activities. The appellant was accused of supplying explosive material and was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. Despite his conviction being upheld, he sought parole, which was rejected by authorities based on adverse reports indicating potential threats to societal peace and safety, including risks of untoward incidents, threats, and physical harm to witnesses and the public. The appellant challenged the rejection of his parole application, arguing that the nature of his crime alone should not disqualify him from parole, especially considering his conduct in jail and the principles of reformation and societal reintegration.
Ratio of the Case: The court emphasized that conviction for a serious or heinous crime does not automatically warrant denial of parole, especially when the primary considerations are the offender's conduct, potential for reformation, and the objective of maintaining societal peace. It highlighted that parole serves the purpose of enabling prisoners to maintain family and social ties, aiding their reintegration, and promoting reformation, which are fundamental objectives of the criminal justice system. The court underscored that the decision to grant parole must be based on a comprehensive assessment of the offender’s behavior, potential threat to society, and the likelihood of reformation, rather than solely on the severity of the crime committed. It also stressed that adverse reports indicating potential threats and societal disturbance are relevant considerations for denying parole, and that the authority's exercise of discretion in such cases is justified when based on relevant and sufficient grounds. Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the authorities acted within their powers when considering the risk factors associated with granting parole to a life convict involved in serious terrorist activities.
JUDGMENT
A.K. SIKRI, J.
Serial bomb blasts took place in five trains on December 06, 1993 at the behest of certain miscreants on the first anniversary of the Babri Masjid demolition. As per the allegations of the prosecution, a conspirational meeting was held in this behalf in Lucknow a couple of months before, to carry out the aforesaid operations. Six separate First Information Reports (FIRs) came to be registered where this bomb blast had taken place, namely, at Kota, Allahabad, Kanpur, Gujarat, Malkajgiri and Karjat. Five of these FIRs were clubbed together and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, the provisions of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as ‘TADA’) were also invoked. The appellant herein was one of the accused persons and one of the allegations levelled against him was that he had supplied explosive material to accused No.1 for which he was paid money by the said accused. Outcome of the trial by the CBI Court was that the appellant, along with others, was convicted under TADA and awarded life imprisonment on February 28, 2004. This conviction has been upheld by this Court as well and, therefore, the conviction and sentence of the appellant has attained finality. In this appeal, the issue pertains to grant of parole to the appellant.
2) The appellant had submitted an application for grant of regular parole for twenty days before the District Parole Advisory Committee (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Advisory Committee’) in the year 2014. His request was rejected by the said Committee on the ground that it did not have the jurisdiction to entertain parole for TADA prisoners. This action of the Advisory Committee was challenged by the appellant in the form of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which was filed in the High Court of Rajasthan. The High Court disposed of this writ petition vide order dated March 21, 2014 with the direction that his application be forwarded to the Advisory Committee to examine the same in accordance with law. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the Advisory Committee considered the application of the appellant for parole on merits and rejected it on the premise that the appellant had been convicted under TADA and, therefore, his application could not be considered in view of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rule, 1958. The appellant again approached the High Court of Rajasthan by means of another writ petition, which was disposed of by the High Court on June 30, 2015 granting him liberty to file a fresh application before the concerned competent authority for grant of parole in terms of rules framed by the Government of India in this behalf vide Notification dated November 9, 1955. Armed with this order, the appellant preferred another parole application with the Government of India. This was, however, rejected by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India vide orders dated November 10, 2015. It may be noted that the appellant had simultaneously moved an application for parole before the State of Rajasthan as well. That application also came to be rejected vide order dated November 16, 2015 on the ground that the Union of India had already rejected the parole of the appellant. For the third time the appellant approached the High Court seeking a prayer to the effect that he be released on parole for twenty days. This petition was dismissed vide order dated May 01, 2016 with the following observations:
“Having heard the rival submissions of the parties and after going through the relevant record, we are of the considered opinion that it is a case of serious and heinous crime where parole cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Further, in view of the fact that appeal has been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it would not be appropriate for exercise of discretion in favour of the petitioner.
The writ petition is accordin
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
