Parole is a rehabilitative right, and dissent from victims cannot solely justify its denial when statutory eligibility is met.

ORDER :

FARJAND ALI, J.

1. By way of the present criminal writ petition, the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court seeking grant of first parole, asserting that in view of the substantial period of incarceration already undergone by him, he has duly attained statutory eligibility for consideration of parole in accordance with the relevant rules governing temporary release of prisoners.

2. Upon receipt of the petition, and considering that the petitioner is incarcerated and unable to effectively prosecute the matter on his own, this Court, in furtherance of the principles of fair trial and access to justice, deemed it appropriate to appoint Ms. Divya Bapna, learned Advocate, as Amicus Curiae to espouse the cause of the petitioner and assist the Court. The learned Amicus Curiae has ably represented the petitioner and advanced submissions on his behalf.

3. I have heard the learned Amicus Curiae as well as Dy. Govt. Advocate and gone through the material available on record.

4. Perusal of the material available on record reflects that during the process of consideration, the Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh, submitted a report expressing apprehension on the ground that the victim’s family is not agreeable to the petitioner’s release on parole. This Court is of the considered opinion that mere dissent or non-consent on the part of the victim’s family, per se, cannot operate as a legal embargo so as to eclipse or nullify the legitimate and legally protected right of a convict to be considered for parole once the statutory criteria stand fulfilled. Any perceived risk relating to breach of peace or disturbance of public tranquillity squarely falls within the statutory domain and administrative responsibility of the police authorities, who are duty-bound to ensure maintenance of law and order during the parole period. Such apprehension, therefore, cannot constitute the sole or determinative ground for denial of parole.

5. The Social Justice & Empowerment Department, Chittorgarh, upon conducting an independent and objective inquiry, submitted its report indicating that the petitioner hails from an economically impoverished and socially vulnerable background. The Department, while acknowledging these circumstances, recommended that the petitioner may be considered for release on first parole for a period of 20 days, albeit with a stipulation that he reside at a place other than his native residence.

6. The report submitted by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Udaipur, merely records that the petitioner’s conduct was “not found satisfactory.” Significantly, the report fails to disclose any specific instance of misconduct, indiscipline, adverse behaviour, or infraction of jail rules attributable to the petitioner. It has neither been alleged nor established that the petitioner’s behaviour was objectionable or that his attitude posed any tangible concern warranting denial of parole. A vague, cryptic, and non-speaking observation that the conduct was “not satisfactory,” bereft of supporting material or articulated reasons, cannot be construed as a legally sustainable ground for rejection of a parole application.

6.1 Object and Underlying Principles of Parole — with Rebuttal to the Opponent’s Objection

Parole is not a matter of indulgence or charity; it is a well-recognised correctional and rehabilitative measure forming an integral part of the criminal justice system. Its object is to balance societa