IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, MUNNURI LAXMAN, JJ.
Pappu, S/o Devaram – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan- Respondent
D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 747/2024
Decided on : 18-10-2024
(A) Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 - Rule 14(c) and 18 - Parole application rejected due to long absconding period - Court emphasizes the importance of good behavior for parole eligibility, stating that breaches must be treated seriously to maintain the integrity of the parole system. (Paras 6, 7, 8)
(B) Discretionary powers of authorities - The court notes that the authority must consider exceptions to Rule 14(c) and ensure satisfaction regarding the prisoner's future conduct before denying parole. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, convicted under Section 302 IPC, seeks parole after serving over 12 years, but his application was rejected based on prior absconding.
Findings of Court:
The court directs reconsideration of the parole application, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of the case under the relevant rules.
Issues: The main issue was whether the rejection of the parole application was justified based on the petitioner's past conduct.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that good behavior is essential for parole eligibility, and any breaches must be taken seriously to uphold the system's integrity.
Result: The court directed the authority to reconsider the parole application.
ORDER :
1. The present petitioner, who is languishing in Central Jail, Jodhpur, has preferred the present parole seeking release on parole for 07 days. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 302, 323/34 of IPC with life imprisonment vide judgment dated 26.07.1999.
2. The petitioner applied for his release on parole under the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (For short hereinafter called 'the Rules of 1958'). The authorities rejected the application made by the petitioner by their order dated 07.03.2024. It is against this rejection, the petitioner is in writ.
3. The convict has already undergone a sentence of 12 years and 07 days and 13 years, 05 months and 15 days with remission as on 13.05.2024.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 will apply and Rule 14(c) of the Rules of 1958 has been used to disqualify him for the parole. The petitioner wants to carve out an exception by pointing out that his case does not fall under ordinary circumstances due to the long sentence served and the provision for exception under Rule 18 of the Rules of 1958.
5. The Jail Department has submitted its reply.
5.1. Learned Government Advocate cum Additional Advocate General submits that through Rule 14(c) of the Rules of 1958 is not absolute and includes the word 'ordinarily', leaving it open for the authority, and the discretion has rightly be exercised in this case, because there was a long period of absconding, and thus, the application has rightly been rejected by the authority.
6. This Court takes note of Rule 14(c) and 18 (I) & (ii) of the Rules of 1958 reads as follows :-
15……………..
16……………..
17…………...
18. Punishment for breach of conditions of Parole - The following punishments may be awarded to the prisoners for over staying their sanctioned parole period or for breach of any other condition laid down namely:-
(i) He should not be let off on parole in future unless the Superintendent of Jail is fully satisfied that he will not commit any breach of conditions in future.
(ii) In case the prisoner is released on parole on the recommendation of the Superintendent of Jail concerned after the breach of condition, the period of release on parole would be 7 days excluding days of journey to home and back. The next Parole will be 15 days (provided he has behaved himself well during the period) and 30 days in the fourth parole”
7. This Court finds that there is a full bench judgment of this Court in Gajja Ram @ Gajendra S/o Lumba Ram (D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.01/2021) on 26.08.2021; the operative portion whereof reads as under :-
The parole, as a privilege, is granted to the prisoners, while keeping the good behaviour of the inmate/parolee as a yardstick of measuring level of discipline while in custody.
The purpose of parole is to release the prisoner so as to enable him to connect with the society to achieve the goals of the golden principles of reformation and rehabilitation. It is important to simultaneously balance the principles of deterrence and prevention.
It is the State's duty that while taking the prisoners towards reformation and rehabilitation, a cautious approach has to be maintained so that the objective of incentivizing the custody is not diluted.
The word 'parole' derives its origin from the French word "Je donne ma parole", which means, "I give my word" i.e. the word of honour.
The criteria of good behaviour is incentivized by means of providing the priso
The court emphasized that good behavior is crucial for parole eligibility, and breaches of parole conditions must be treated seriously to maintain the integrity of the parole system.
As a result of judicial pronouncement of this Court, it would amount to judicial impropriety to say the least, for the subordinate courts including the High Courts to ignore the settled decisions and....
Abscondence from any type of parole, whether regular or emergent, leads to consequences as per Rule 18 of the Rules of 1958.
The nature of parole, whether regular or emergent, is immaterial in the context of abscondance, and the consequences under Rule 18 of the Rules of 1958 apply regardless of the type of parole.
The policy of the State on the date of conviction would be the determinative factor in determining the entitlement of a convict for premature release.
The court upheld the DPAC's discretion in denying parole, emphasizing the need for valid concerns regarding law and order and the applicability of the old Parole Rules of 1958.
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.
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.