Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Pappu vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 18 October, 2024
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2024:RJ-JD:42480-DB] (1 of 6) [CRLW-747/2024]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 747/2024
Pappu, S/o Devaram, B/c Bawari, R/o Thehat, Police Station
Dattaram Garh, Dist. Sikar. Presently R/o Balera Police Station
Bidasar, Dist. Churu (Raj.) (Presently Lodged At Central Jail,
Jodhpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Jaipur.
2. Collector, Sikar.
3. Supdt. Central Jail, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tushar Moad
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, GA cum AAG
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN Order 18/10/2024
1. The present petitioner, who is languishing in Central Jail, Jodhpur, has preferred the present parole seeking release on parole for 07 days. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 302, 323/34 of IPC with life imprisonment vide judgment dated 26.07.1999.
2. The petitioner applied for his release on parole under the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (For short hereinafter called 'the Rules of 1958'). The authorities rejected the application made by the petitioner by their order dated 07.03.2024. It is against this rejection, the petitioner is in writ. (Downloaded on 23/10/2024 at 09:54:06 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:42480-DB] (2 of 6) [CRLW-747/2024]
3. The convict has already undergone a sentence of 12 years and 07 days and 13 years, 05 months and 15 days with remission as on 13.05.2024.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 will apply and Rule 14(c) of the Rules of 1958 has been used to disqualify him for the parole. The petitioner wants to carve out an exception by pointing out that his case does not fall under ordinary circumstances due to the long sentence served and the provision for exception under Rule 18 of the Rules of 1958.
5. The Jail Department has submitted its reply. 5.1. Learned Government Advocate cum Additional Advocate General submits that through Rule 14(c) of the Rules of 1958 is not absolute and includes the word 'ordinarily', leaving it open for the authority, and the discretion has rightly be exercised in this case, because there was a long period of absconding, and thus, the application has rightly been rejected by the authority.
6. This Court takes note of Rule 14(c) and 18 (I) & (ii) of the Rules of 1958 reads as follows :-
"14(c):- Prisoners who have escaped from the Jail or Police custody or attempted to escape;
15.................
16.................
17...............
18. Punishment for breach of conditions of Parole - The following punishments may be awarded to the prisoners for over staying their sanctioned parole period or for breach of any other condition laid down namely:-(Downloaded on 23/10/2024 at 09:54:06 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:42480-DB] (3 of 6) [CRLW-747/2024]
(i) He should not be let off on parole in future unless the Superintendent of Jail is fully satisfied that he will not commit any breach of conditions in future.
(ii) In case the prisoner is released on parole on the recommendation of the Superintendent of Jail concerned after the breach of condition, the period of release on parole would be 7 days excluding days of journey to home and back. The next Parole will be 15 days (provided he has behaved himself well during the period) and 30 days in the fourth parole"
7. This Court finds that there is a full bench judgment of this Court in Gajja Ram @ Gajendra S/o Lumba Ram (D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.01/2021) on 26.08.2021; the operative portion whereof reads as under :-
"While keeping into consideration the entire conspectus and being conscious of the fact that the fundamental underlying concept of parole is to provide opportunities to the prisoners to integrate with the society on the incentive of maintaining good behaviour, it is relevant that good behaviour is ascertained through Superintendent of Jail and remains at the fulcrum of the consideration. The parole, as a privilege, is granted to the prisoners, while keeping the good behaviour of the inmate/parolee as a yardstick of measuring level of discipline while in custody. The purpose of parole is to release the prisoner so as to enable him to connect with the society to achieve the goals of the golden principles of reformation and rehabilitation. It is important to simultaneously balance the principles of deterrence and prevention.
It is the State's duty that while taking the prisoners towards reformation and rehabilitation, a cautious approach has to be maintained so that the objective of incentivizing the custody is not diluted.
The word 'parole' derives its origin from the French word "Je donne ma parole", which means, "I give my word" i.e. the word of honour.
The criteria of good behaviour is incentivized by means of providing the prisoner with relief of parole while nurturing him for rehabilitation and reformation. The step by step increase of liberties in the shape of parole are to usher the prisoner in a regime of increased freedom and decreased rigour of custody. While taking this in a (Downloaded on 23/10/2024 at 09:54:06 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:42480-DB] (4 of 6) [CRLW-747/2024] reverse analogy, in case the discipline of the parole is allowed to be breached without any consequences, the same shall result into denting the incentive of maintaining good behaviour, while undergoing custody. All the social objectives of the reformation and rehabilitation shall be washed away or surely diluted, if the parole is stigmatized with impunity by frequent breaches without repercussion.
The incentive of freedom has to be weighed against disincentive of breach, while keeping the good behaviour as an effective criteria to measure both.
Thus, it is clear that while weighing the incentive against disincentive, the disciplinary issue has to be of stellar standard, so as to ensure that the parole, which is undoubtedly a part of the custody period, has the same sanctity, as is given to the custody, and any violation of the parole conditions has to be viewed seriously so as to enable the system to grant more and more paroles to the inmates, while strengthening the system of rehabilitation and reformation. The legal position has to give an unequivocal mandate that any violation of parole tenure has to be viewed on the same pedestal as breaching of custody. In view of the above analysis, the only conclusion, which can be drawn is that in the event of failure of a prisoner to report back to the jail authorities on completion of parole would amount to escape from lawful custody. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that denial of opportunity to a prisoner for admission in open air camp, on account of his overstay amounts to double jeopardy, is without any merit. Rule 15 of Rules of 2021 clearly says that grant of parole to a prisoner should be regarded as occasion to encourage good conduct and it cannot be claimed as a matter of right by a prisoner. Preamble of Rules of 1972 also says that these rules are framed for sending convicts to open air camps with a view to encourage good conduct, satisfactory performance of work and to promote life of self-discipline among the convicts of Rajasthan. When a prisoner cannot claim parole or admission in open air camp as a matter of right, in our view, any ineligibility provided in the Rules of 2021 and Rules of 1972, which disentitles a prisoner to get the benefit of parole or admission in open air camp respectively, cannot be equated with any punishment provided under any law for breach of conditions of parole or for escaping the prison or jail.
So far as contention of learned counsel Mr Ashok Chhangani that in every case, there is no absolute bar in Rule 3(c) of the Rules of 1972 regarding transfer of a prisoner to Open Air Camp is concerned, we are not supposed to enter into (Downloaded on 23/10/2024 at 09:54:06 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:42480-DB] (5 of 6) [CRLW-747/2024] this controversy as it is not the question precisely referred to answer.
However, the Division Bench of this Court in Parvezshah vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B.Criminal Writs No.101/2019) decided on 13.03.2019 has taken into consideration the Rule 3 of Rules of 1972 and held as under:
"6. Thus as laid down by this Court in Gaju Ram & Mohan Lal's case (supra), the inhibition covered by Rule 3 of the Rules of 1972 regarding transfer of the prisoners to Open Air Camp cannot operate as absolute bar and the application preferred on behalf of the convict has to be considered on merits after due application of mind, keeping in view the spirit of the provisions of the said rule."
Hence, in view of the above referred decision, we need not to pass any order on this issue. Accordingly, we answer the question of law referred for adjudication in the following manner:
(i) The answer to the question of law referred for adjudication is in affirmative. The view expressed by Division Bench of this Court in Yogesh Kumar Devangan vs. State and Ors. (supra) is not the correct law.
(ii) Failure of a prisoner to surrender to the prison authorities on completion of parole period would amount to escape from the lawful custody of the State and ordinarily such prisoner would not be entitled to be transferred to Open Air Camp as per Rule 3(c) of the Rules of 1972."
7.1 Therefore, escape and overstaying are treated the same in terms of law as per the full bench judgment of this Court and this Court is bound by this full bench of judgment and once the same falls within the purview of Rule 14(c) of the Rules of 1958, then it is to be considered as ordinarily not to be released, to be conjointly considered with the parameters given in Rule 18(i) & (ii) of the Rules of 1958.
8. This Court is of the opinion that these are discretionary powers available to the authority and the mind applied in the impugned order only considers a very limited regular feature of the Social Welfare Department and basic satisfaction of the Superintendent of Jail. However, in such a case, the authority (Downloaded on 23/10/2024 at 09:54:06 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:42480-DB] (6 of 6) [CRLW-747/2024] needs to first examine whether the case falls under the exception to Rule 14(c) of the Rules of 1958 and is not an ordinary case then, in light of Rule 18(i) of the Rules of 1958, the authority must record full satisfaction that the Superintendent of Jail believes the petitioner will not commit any breach of conditions in the future. Such conjoint satisfaction is not there on record.
9. Hence, while disposing of the parole petition, it is directed that reconsideration of the parole be undertaken while keeping into consideration the Rule 14(c) and 18(i) and (ii) of the Rules of 1958. It is made clear that this order does not indicate any expression, which can be construed for or against the present petitioner, and the authority shall be free to examine the case in light of the aforesaid discussed laws i.e. Rule 14(1)(c) and 18(i) and (ii) of the Rules of 1958.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 8-sudheer/-
(Downloaded on 23/10/2024 at 09:54:06 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)