Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Deepak Meena vs State Of Raj And Ors on 31 January, 2018
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24116 / 2017
Deepak Meena S/o Ratan Lal Meena B/c Meena R/o Tagar Mohalla,
Bhawani Mandi, District Jhalawar (Raj.) (at Present in Central Jail,
Kota) Through His Sister Rajanti Bai W/o Birju Meena, Aged About
38 Years, R/o Ward No: 14, Asakali, Dhaba Deh, Kamalpura, Kota
(Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary Home,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The District Magistrate, Jhalawar (Raj.).
3. The Superintendent District Jail, Jhalawar (Raj.).
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohit Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prakash Thakuriya PP _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Order 31/01/2018 The instant writ petition (parole) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the convict - petitioner praying interalia that the order dated 29.11.2017 whereby first parole was declined to the petitioner be set aside.
Briefly stated, the petitioner was convicted for the offences under Sections 379 and 411 IPC and was sentenced to undergo three years RI. The appeal and revision preferred by the petitioner were dismissed and the sentence awarded by the trial court was affired by Appellate Court and Revisional Court.
In the petition filed by the petitioner for grant of first (2 of 4) [CW-24116/2017] parole, notices were issued. Respondents have filed reply, wherein it is stated that the Department of Social Justice had recommended grant of parole to the petitioner but office of Superintendent of Police Jhalawar on 28.11.2017 had not recommended grant of parole to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is a habitual thief and in case he is released on parole, there is every apprehension that he may abscond.
The Single Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court, in Inderjit Singh vs. State of Haryana [1996 Vol.3 RCR (Cr.) 845], while interpreting the right of convict to parole under Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968, had observed as under:-
"4. Under Section 6 of the Act, parole can be declined on the ground if the release of the petitioner is likely to endanger the security of the State or maintenance of public order. These two grounds are not attracted in the present case is as much as security of State cannot be jeopardised by any stretch of imagination. Security of State refers to crimes intended to overthrow the Government, waging of war or internal or external aggression against the Government and such like acts. Similarly maintenance of public order refers to affray, disturbance of peace and the like. It is not made clear in the report of the Government that how his release is likely to attract the above two grounds referred in Section 6 of the Act. The State is not a weak organ that it cannot conduct the maintenance of the public order and is not in a position to keep a watch on the activities of the petitioner for the purposes of public order. The petitioner is not so strong so as to create a situation where the public order is in danger. It seems the grounds have been taken simply to deny the petitioner his right to come out of the jail under the provisions of the Act. However, if the petitioner in any way violates the conditions of release on parole, enough safeguards are provided under Section 8 of the Act and Section 9 of the Act.
5. It cannot be disputed that the purpose of release on parole is (3 of 4) [CW-24116/2017] very useful to change the outlook of a criminal so as to make him a useful member of the society. If he is not allowed to be released on parole, to repair the house, it can have a very bad effect on his attitude towards the society. The stress these days is to hate the crime and not the criminal, rather to give him all the possible avenues to bring him on the path which may lead to bring peace in the society and to get rid of a criminal tendency in a criminal, and one of the ways to do it is to allow him to come out of the cold walls of the jail and to associate with the members of his family so as to carry out the obligations of a social human being so as to bring tranquillity, happiness and prosperity in the society. Many of time, crime is the result of socio-economic milieu and it is the duty of the agencies maintaining the public order and running criminal justice system, to see that the crimes are minimized and there is peace and tranquillity in the society and one of the ways to achieve this object is to give effect to social legislation and salutary provisions of the Act so that the institution of prison which is now being run as not concentration camps with all its brutalities and devoid of human spirit and touch but as reformatory so as to churn out good citizens from bad ones."
Parole is granted to the convict so that he is able to meet his family members and carry his obligations towards family. Release of convict on parole promotes tranquility, peace, prosperity, happiness and the good will in the society.
Mere apprehension expressed by the office of Superintendent of Police without assigning any reasons or furnishing any record in support thereof is not sufficient to deny parole to the petitioner. District Magistrate if so require can insist for heavy surety bonds to ward off apprehension that the petitioner may abscond. Therefore, the explanation furnished by the Superintendent of Police, without assigning any reasons cannot be accepted.
Consequently, the present writ petition (Parole) is accepted.
(4 of 4) [CW-24116/2017] The petitioner is ordered to be released on first parole to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate Jhalawar. It is further ordered that District Magistrate Jhalawar to ward off apprehension expressed by Superintendent of Police that petitioner may abscond, shall insist for registered sureties to be verified by revenue officer not below the rank of Tehsildar. District Magistrate may insist for heavy bonds from the sureties. The petitioner during the period of parole shall mark his presence in local police station on every day.
(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA)J. Mak/-