Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Deva @ Devilal vs State Of Raj on 22 August, 2012
Bench: Govind Mathur, R.S. Chauhan
FloatingFrame
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
D.B. CR. PAROLE WRIT PETITION No.6772/2012
Deva @ Devi Lal V/s. State of Raj. & Ors.
Date of Judgment :: 22nd August, 2012
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.S. CHAUHAN By Post.
Mr. K.R. Bishnoi Addl. Govt. Advocate.
(Per Hon'ble Mr. R.S. Chauhan, J.):
Incarcerated in Central Jail Udaipur, a convicted prisoner, Devi @ Devi Lal, sent a letter to this Court which has been treated as a letter petition by this Court.
The petitioner has pleaded that vide order dated 14.02.2012, the District Parole Committee Udaipur had granted him the first regular parole for twenty days. However, it has directed him to furnish two verified sureties of Rs.50,000/-
each and a personal bond of the same amount. According to him, his father had expired long time ago. His family consists of his old mother and three minor daughters. Since there is no earning member in the family, the family is reduced to hand to mouth existence. Due to his poverty, due to incapacity of his mother, the family cannot procure two sureties for the high amount of Rs.50,000/-. At best, he can furnish a personal bond, but that too not of Rs.50,000/-. It is only due to his utter 2 poverty that he has never taken the benefit of parole, although he has been incarcerated for the last twelve years. Therefore, he has prayed that the requirement of furnishing two sureties be dispensed with and the amount of personal bond be reduced.
The learned Additional Govt. Advocate has fairly admitted the fact that the petitioner has completed a total sentence of eleven years, five months and twenty three days as of June 30, 2012. However, he has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner.
Heard the learned Public Prosecutor.
Although incarceration of a person necessarily implies deprivation of his fundamental rights, but the fundamental rights are not completely obliterated. The twin rights of "life" and "personal liberty" continue to glow even in the dark corners of a prison. Realizing these twin aspects, the Parole Rules were created as a piece of social beneficial legislation for the benefit of the large number of convicted prisoners. Even when the convicted prisoner is serving a "term of imprisonment" or of "life imprisonment", he does have a right of consideration of his case for parole. During the parole period personal liberty is restored for a limited period. Repeatedly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court have held that parole serves three purposes; firstly, it re-establishes the link between the prisoner and his family; secondly, it permits the prisoner to move freely in the mainstream of 3 society; thirdly, it is a motivational method to encourage the prisoner to reform himself during the period of incarceration. In fact, Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958 ('the Rules', for short) clearly states that parole should be used as a means to teach good behaviour to the prisoner.
Keeping these views in mind, both Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court have repeatedly held that the parole should be granted as liberally as possible. While considering the cases, the Advisory Committee should be alive to the constitutional mandate and to the philosophy which underlines the Parole Rules.
Under the Rules the convicted prisoners have the right of consideration of being granted the parole in case they where to fulfil the eligibility requirement laid down by the Rules. The right of consideration is a substantive right. It cannot be converted into an illusory right by imposition of onerous condition. The District Parole Committee/Advisory Committee have to keep in mind the stark reality of this country where poverty stalks the land. However, poverty cannot deprive a convicted prisoner of the fundamental right to life - the right to life would include the right to associate with one's family and, if found eligible, to be released on parole. After all, parole is means to restore the fundamental right of movement and is a means to restore the family ties. Therefore, the District Parole Committee/Advisory Committee 4 should not impose the onerous requirement of furnishing of two sureties of a very high amount. They should be sensitive to the economic condition of the convicted prisoner.
Therefore, this court modifies the order dated 14.02.2012 qua the petitioner, and dispenses with the requirement of furnishing of two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each and further reduces the requirement of personal bond from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.20,000/-. In case, the petitioner furnishes a personal bond of Rs.20,000/- to the satisfaction of the Superintendent, Central Jail Udaipur then the petitioner, Deva @ Devi Lal S/o Ganesh Lal, shall be released on his first parole of twenty days. He is directed to maintain peace and tranquility during his furlough and to report back to the Central Jail, Udaipur after completion of twentieth day of his first parole The petition is, hereby, allowed.
[R.S.CHAUHAN], J. [GOVIND MATHUR], J. a.asopa/-