The court established that the state has a constitutional obligation to provide legal aid and ensure the reformative treatment of convicts, particularly those unable to meet parole conditions due to financial constraints.

JUDGMENT

1. The convict petitioner Rakesh is undergoing life imprisonment at the Open Air Camp, Barmer. As per the nominal roll, the convict had served imprisonment of 14 years, 3 months and 20 days by 19.07.2021. He filed an application for release on first parole of 20 days which has been accepted by the District Parole Advisory Committee, Jodhpur vide recommendations dated 24.02.2021. Citing poor family conditions and other impediments as reason, the convict petitioner has forwarded this writ petition from jail praying that the requirement of furnishing surety bonds imposed in the recommendations dated 24.02.2021 may be relaxed because he has no means to comply and continues to languish in custody.

2. We had directed Shri Farzand Ali to submit the family status report of the convict petitioner. In response to this direction, a letter dated 19.07.2021 sent by the Municipality, Pipar has been filed on record as per which, the convict petitioner does not have any movable/immovable property in Pipar.

3. Suffice it to say that the facts narrated above reveal a very pathetic state of affairs. The convict petitioner has served 14 years imprisonment and for the first time, has his case been considered for release on parole.

4. By way of advancing the spirit of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the courts have held time and again that reformative theory of punishment is the correct way to treat the convicts and to ensure their reintegration into the society.

5. In the case of Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna, (1979) AIR SC 1377, Hon ble the Supreme Court held that it was the State s duty to protect the constitutional right of the accused to secure legal service and it was observed as below:

3. We find that perusnant to the directions given by us in our order dated 9th March, 1979, Bhageshwari Prasad Pandey, Superintendent of the Patna Central Jail has filed an affidavit dated 4th April, 1979 along with a chart showing the dates on which petitioners Nos. 1. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 17 confined in the Patna Central Jail prior to their release on personal bond, were produced before the Magistrates in compliance with the proviso to Section 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A similar affidavit dated 4th April, 1979 has also been filed by Pradeep Kumar Gangoli, Superintendent of Muzaffarpur Jail along with a chart showing the dates on which petitioners Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 18 who were previously confined in the Muzaffarpur Central Jail prior to their release on personal bond, were produced before the Magistrates in compliance with the requirement of the proviso to S. 167 (2). Bhuvan Mohan Munda, Superintendent of the Ranchi Central Jail has also filed an affidavit dated 12th April, 1979 together with a chart showing the dates on which some of the undertrial prisoners referred to in our Order dated 9th March, 1979 were produced before the Magistrates in compliance with the requirement of the proviso to Section 167 (2). It is apparent from these charts that some of the petitioners and other undertrial prisoners referred to in these charts have been produced numerous times before the Magistrates and the Magistrates have been continually making orders of remand to judicial custody. It is difficult to believe that on each of the countless occasions on which these undertrial prisoners were produced before the Magistrates and the magistrates made orders of remand, they must have applied their mind to the necessity of remanding those undertrial prisoners to judicial custody. We are also very doubtful whether on the expiry of 90 days or 60 days, as the case may be, from the date of arrest, the attention of the undertrial prisoners was drawn to the fact that they were entitled to be released on bail under proviso (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 167. When an undertrial prisoner is produced before a Magistrate and he has been in detention for 90 days or 60 days, as the case may, the Magistr