Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
The vs . on 28 March, 2014
Author: Dinesh Maheshwari
Bench: Dinesh Maheshwari
D.B. PAROLE PETITION NO.1891/2014
1
D.B. PAROLE PETITION NO.1891/2014
Bhaga Ram
Vs.
State of Rajasthan
DATE OF ORDER : 28th March 2014
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA
By post
Mr.S.K.Vyas, Government Counsel
BY THE COURT:
The petitioner-prisoner has sent this letter petition seeking modification in the condition imposed by the District Parole Committee, Sirohi in its meeting dated 21.01.2014 for his release on 40 days' parole, insofar he has been required to furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- and two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each. The petitioner has stated his predicament that only his old and infirm mother is there in the family and there is none else to arrange for two sureties. The petitioner has also pointed out the fact that in the order dated 31.05.2011 as passed in Parole Petition No.4243/2011, he was allowed to avail third parole after furnishing personal bond only.
As per the reply submissions, the petitioner-prisoner has served the sentence for a period of 11 years 11 months and 25 days as on 28.02.2014; and has earned Jail and State remissions of about 4 years and 7 months. As per the reply submissions, it is also clear that the petitioner has availed of four paroles in the past and nothing of any cause of complaint has been indicated. Further, from the facts given out by the learned Government Counsel during the course of submissions, it is but clear that the petitioner is serving the D.B. PAROLE PETITION NO.1891/2014 2 sentence at present in Open Air Camp and his conduct is satisfactory. It is also clear that from 15.06.2011 to 24.07.2011, the petitioner-prisoner availed of parole for 40 days, only after furnishing personal bond pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 31.05.2011, as passed by this Court in Parole Petition No.4243/2011. Not only this, even the next parole for a period of 40 days from 22.08.2012 to 31.10.2012 was allowed to him by the District Parole Committee, Sirohi in its meeting dated 14.08.2012, only on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-. It is noticed that though in its meeting dated 21.01.2014, the District Parole Committee, Sirohi took note of the aforesaid order dated 31.05.2011, where this Court had granted indulgence to the petitioner of availing parole on personal bond only but the Committee still chose to impose the condition on the petitioner that he would furnish two sureties apart from the personal bond.
We feel rather dissatisfied that despite having all the relevant facts before it, the District Parole Committee chose to impose the condition of furnishing the surety bonds by the petitioner-prisoner. It was expected that the District Parole Committee would take into consideration the substance and intent of the order dated 31.05.2011. It is, moreover, disquieting that the same Parole Committee, who had allowed another parole in the year 2012 to the same prisoner on personal bond and has not indicated any change of circumstance or any other cogent reason, yet chose to impose the condition of furnishing of surety bonds by the petitioner in its meeting dated 21.01.2014.
Once this Court has taken note of the adverse condition of the petitioner and there is no change of circumstances, the District D.B. PAROLE PETITION NO.1891/2014 3 Parole Committee ought to have taken appropriate decision so as to avoid unnecessary harassment of the prisoner concerned. We would leave the matter at that only while expecting of the District Parole Committee concerned to be more discreet and practical in its approach rather than standing on unnecessary ceremonies; and also to take note of the substance and intent of the orders passed by this Court in such matters.
So far the present petition is concerned, it deserves to be, and is, allowed. The decision of the District Parole Committee dated 21.01.2014, insofar it requires the petitioner prisoner to furnish two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each, shall stand annulled. The petitioner prisoner Bhaga Ram son of Kana Ram shall be allowed to avail 40 days' parole upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent concerned.
However, we make it clear that we have only modified the conditions regarding furnishing of surety/bonds. Other adequate and reasonable conditions, as might be imposed by the jail authorities concerned shall apply.
(BANWARI LAL SHARMA),J. (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J. MK