Uttarakhand High Court
Raushan Nautiyal vs State Of Uttarakhand on 2 July, 2020
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 13 of 2020
Raushan Nautiyal ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ....Respondent
Mr. Rajat Mittal, Amicus Curaie.
Mr. Subhash Tyagi Bhardwaj, DAG for the State.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
This matter is taken up heard through Video Conferencing
2. Forget me not. I am a person, though convicted, but perhaps not denuded of my constitutional rights. I want to meet my family. I want to establish relations with my family members. I want to be connected socially with the outside world. These are the cravings of a convict who through jail authorities filed the present writ petition because having been convicted in the year 2005, according to the petitioner, he has never been granted parole even on the occasions when his mother died (for her cremation), when his brother died (for his cremation) and when his son got facture (for his treatment). And again, when he had to perform Shraad (post death ritual) of his mother.
3. This Court was told by the learned State counsel on the last occasion that the file of the convict for parole is cleared by the Police Department and it is somewhere lying with the Home Department.
4. Today, learned State counsel would refer to some letter of State Government citing the reasons as to why remission was not allowed to the petitioner.
5. This Court is not considering the question of remission of the petitioner. It is a question of parole.
6. Needless to say, there are plethora of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the subject. It is constitutionally valid to say that connect the prisoner with society. Let allow him to live a life with dignity. Don't treat him with revenge. Make efforts to rehabilitate so that tomorrow when he comes out from the prison, he may be responsive and informed citizen to contribute in the building of this nation and to serve for the larger cause of humanity.
7. But, what is depicted here is a story not encouraging. It perhaps goes to some black hole. There is no justification coming up as conveyed by the learned State counsel, as to why for the last fifteen years, this petitioner was never granted parole. State, has, as a ritual filed an objection to the parole citing following two reasons:-
1. That since appeal was decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the writ petition is not maintainable.
2. The offence is heinous in which the petitioner has been convicted.
8. Deeper discussion at this stage may not be required. Suffice to say, both these grounds are not tenable in the eyes of law. They are against law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Asfaq Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, 2017 SCC 55 (Para No.9).
9. What is being conveyed orally by the learned State counsel is not giving full response. The matter has to be adjudicated. The Court requests the Superintendent District Jail, Dehradun to connect the petitioner through Video Conference at 2:00 PM today, so that he may also participate in these proceedings today.
10. The Court also requests the Director General, Prison to join the proceedings at 2:00 PM.
211. Meanwhile, learned State Counsel shall immediately forward the documents which he has received from the State Department to the Registry of this Court. Learned State Counsel has also assured that he shall also inform the Director General, Prison as well as Superintendent District Jail, Dehradun for hearing at 2:00 PM.
12. Registry is directed to ensure that those documents are placed on file before 1:45 PM today.
13. Let a copy of this order be immediately be sent to Superintendent District Jail, Dehradun and Director General, Prison, Uttarakhand.
14. List this matter at 2:00 PM.
15. Registry is also directed to do the needful so as to convene hearing at 2:00 PM as aforesaid.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 02.07.2020 Jitendra 3