RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Sandeep Mehta, Manoj Kumar Garg, JJ.
Aasuram - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No. 327 of 2021
Decided On : 04-08-2021
[PAROLE] - [RELEASE OF CONVICT] - [The court found the denial of parole to the convict-petitioner to be based on vague and perfunctory reasons, lacking justifiable grounds. The court emphasized the purpose of parole as a means for reintegration into society and determined that concerns about absconding could be mitigated through the imposition of bail and bonds. Consequently, the court quashed the denial and ordered the convict's release on parole under specified conditions.]
Fact of the Case:
The convict-petitioner sought to challenge the District Parole Advisory Committee's decision to deny his request for a first parole of twenty days, citing concerns of potential absconding as the reason for the denial.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the reasons for denying parole to be mechanical and not based on justifiable grounds, highlighting the importance of parole for reintegration into society.
Issues: Whether the denial of parole was justified based on the apprehension of the convict absconding and whether the recommendations from other authorities should be considered.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the purpose of parole is to facilitate reintegration into society and that concerns about absconding can be addressed through conditions such as bail and bonds.
Result: The court allowed the parole writ petition, quashed the denial of parole, and ordered the convict's release on parole upon fulfilling specified conditions.
JUDGMENT
1. The convict-petitioner has forwarded this letter petition from jail seeking to assail the order dated 17.05.2021 passed by District Parole Advisory Committee, Barmer whereby his prayer for releasing him on first parole of twenty days has been rejected.
2. The Committee denied release of the convict-petitioner on first parole on the ground that as per the report of the Superintendent of Police, Barmer, there is an apprehension of the convict absconding in case he is released on parole. In the said report, it is also mentioned that only for the purpose of re-integration into the society, the convict-petitioner has prayed for his release on first parole and that there is no concrete reason for releasing him on parole. On the contrary, the Social Welfare Department as well as the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur have recommended for his release on parole.
3. We find that the reasons assigned for denying parole to the convict-petitioner are absolutely mechanical, vague and perfunctory and are not based on justifiable grounds so as to deny parole to the convict petitioner. Suffice it to say that the Parole Rules have been promulgated to provide the convicts a window of visiting their families and so that they can be re-integrated into the social fabric. Further, the apprehension that the petitioner will abscond, in case of release on parole, can be very well taken care of by requiring him to furnish heavy bail and bonds.
4. In this background, we are inclined to accept the instant parole writ petition which is hereby allowed. The order dated 17.05.2021 passed by the District Parole Advisory Committee, Barmer is quashed and struck down qua the convict petitioner and it is ordered that the convict Aasuram S/o Modaram, shall be released on first parole of twenty days upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.50,000/- each (duly verified by the Tehsildar concerned) to the satisfaction of Superintendent Central Jail, Jodhpur on the usual terms and conditions. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur shall be at liberty to impose other adequate and reasonable conditions to ensure return of the convict to the custody after availing the parole. The term of parole shall be computed from the date of his actual release.
Parole rules are intended to facilitate the reintegration of convicts into society, and apprehensions of absconding can be addressed by requiring heavy bail and bonds.
The court established that the denial of parole must be based on justifiable grounds and that concerns regarding absconding can be mitigated through appropriate conditions.
Parole is a concession for good behavior, not a right, and must be granted with consideration of rehabilitation, irrespective of family objections, unless supported by independent evaluation.
Denial of parole should be based on justifiable grounds, and apprehension of breach of law and order can be addressed by imposing appropriate conditions and requiring sureties.
The court emphasized that the mere fact of serving a sentence for a heinous crime cannot be the sole reason to deny parole, and specific reasons must be provided to curtail or deny parole.
Point of Law : If a person commits any crime, it does not mean that by committing a crime, he ceases to be a human being and that he can be deprived of those aspects of life which constitute human di....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.