Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Magna vs State Of Raj on 6 February, 2014
Author: Govind Mathur
Bench: Govind Mathur
-1-
DB Civil Parole Writ Petition No.14530/2013
Magna
v.
State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Date of Order :: 6th February, 2014
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ATUL KUMAR JAIN
By post.
Mr. K.R.Bishnoi, Government Counsel for the respondents.
....
A letter addressed to this Court by convict prisoner Magna son of Dayaram, by caste Nayak, is treated as a petition for writ.
The facts necessary to be noticed are that learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nimbahera convicted the petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code by judgment dated 2.12.2000 and ordered to undergo life term imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000/-. The convict prisoner has already served actual sentence for a period of 15 years 8 months and 16 days as on 20.12.2013. The term of imprisonment including jail remission is 19 years 9 months and 29 days as on 20.12.2013. On attaining eligibility to be considered for grant of permanent parole as per provisions of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1958') he preferred a petition for writ (DB Civil Parole Writ Petition No.9521/2013) and that came to be accepted on 17.7.2013. In the case aforesaid a direction was given to award permanent parole to the petitioner as per provisions -2- of the Rules of 1958. In compliance of the directions given by this Court in the petition for writ referred above the Superintendent, Central Jail, Udaipur passed an order dated 10.10.2013 to release the petitioner on permanent parole subject to furnishing two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each and a personal bond of the same amount.
The grievance of the petitioner now survives is that he is not in position to furnish required sureties. In the letter submitted by him it is submitted that he is a landless farmer and no one in his family is capable to furnish the sureties. His mother is an old blind woman of 80 years. A request, thus, is made for releasing on permanent parole by furnishing the personal bond only.
Heard learned Government Advocate and examined the record.
As already stated, the convict prisoner has already served actual sentence for a period of about 16 years. He has also availed adequate jail and State remission and this fact indicates about satisfactory jail conduct of the convict prisoner. He has also availed all regular paroles under the Rules of 1958 without any complaint. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is coming from lower echelons of the society and his socio economic condition is quite weak. He is behind the bars from last more than 15 years and in these circumstances the non-availability of adequate sureties is quite obvious. In the event of non-grant of the writ as prayed for the petitioner shall require to be under confinement though he -3- is treated as a person fit to avail permanent parole. Such confinement ultimately shall reflect that a person had otherwise having satisfactory conduct but is not in position to furnish required sureties cannot have opportunity for his reformation, rehabilitation to flow in natural stream of the society. We are of the considered opinion that fundamental object of granting parole is rehabilitation and reformation of a convict prisoner must not be frustrated due to his weak socio economic condition.
Having considered the same we are inclined to grant this petition for writ. Accordingly, the same is allowed. The respondents are directed to release the petitioner on permanent parole provided he furnishes a personal, bond of Rs.25,000/- only to the satisfaction of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Udaipur.
(ATUL KUMAR JAIN),J. (GOVIND MATHUR),J. kkm/ps