R.S. Chauhan, J.—Cribbed, cabined and confined for over six years within the four walls of the Central Jail, Bharatpur, the petitioner wanted to breath the fresh air outside the jail and had applied for his first regular parole under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘Rules’ of 1958). However, the Advisory Committee in its meeting held on 22.03.2007 rejected his case for parole obstangly on the ground that the Superintendent of Police has submitted an adverse report against the petitioner. Hence this petition before this Court.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was convicted for offences under Secs. 302 and 307/149 IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Bharatpur and was sentenced to life imprisonment. As on 30.04.2007, the petitioner had completed a period of 6 years, 5 months and 21 days of incarceration including Jail and State remission. Since he had completed more than 1/4th of his sentence, and his conduct in the jail was good, he had applied for his first regular parole under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958. As stated above, his case was considered by the Advisory Committee in its meeting on 22.03.2007. However, notwithstanding the favourable report of the Superintendent, Central Jail, the Advisory Committee has rejected his case on the ground that the Superintendent of Police has submitted an adverse ‘report.

3. Mr. Satyapal Poshwal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently argued that the Advisory Committee has to objectively assess the Case of the convicted prisoner. It should not ipsi dixit accept the adverse report of the Superintendent of Police while ignoring the favorable report of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Bharatpur. Lastly he has argued the denial of parole demoralize and disuade the prisoners from reforming themselves.

4. On the other hand, Mr. M.L. Goyal, Deputy Government Advocate, has argued that the petitioner was tried along with two other co-accused persons namely Vijay Singh and Shiv Singh. Both the co-accused persons were granted parole. However, neither of these two persons have returned to the jail and are absconding. Therefore, the petitioner should not be· granted parole as he is also likely to abscond.

5. We have heard both the learned counsels and have perused the impugned order.

6. Parole cannot and should not be used as an excuse by the convicted prisoners to escape from the jail, therefore, in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to impose an stringent condition upon the petitioner.

7. Parole is an essential ingredient of the reformative theory of punishment. The aim and object of incarcerating the convicted person is not just to punish him, but more importantly to reform him during the period of imprisonment. In order to teach good behavior to convicted prisoners, parole system was introduced as far back as in 1958. By denying parole to an eligible convicted prisoner, the prisoner is not only demoralized, but also demotivated from reforming himself. Therefore, the denial of the parole has an adverse impact on the psychology and behavioral pattern of the prisoners. Hence the parole should not be denied in mechanical and callous manner. Repeatedly, both the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court have encouraged a liberal grant of parole to the prisoners. The grant of parole has served three important purposes; firstly it is an incentive to a prisoner to reform himself, secondly it permits the family ties to be maintained during the long period of imprisonment; thirdly, it slowly brings the convicted prisoner back into the mainstream of society. Keeping these three aims in mind, the Jail Administration should liberally grant parole.

8. Repeatedly, this Court has directed the Advisory Committee not to ipsi dixit accept the adverse reports submitted by the police and the Social Welfare Officer. In-fact, such reports are mechanically drawn up and are not based on any cogent in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document