Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Raman Singh vs State (Home Department)Ors on 25 July, 2013
Author: R.S. Chauhan
Bench: R.S. Chauhan
In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur O R D E R D.B. Civil Writ Petition [Parole] No.6435 of 2013. Raman Singh VERSUS The State of Rajasthan and Others Date Of Order ::: 25.07.2013 Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.S. Chauhan Hon'ble Mr. Justice Veerendr Singh Siradhana Mr. Lakhan Singh Tomar, Counsel for the Petitioner Mrs. Rekha Madnani, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the Respondents *** Per Court :
The petitioner, Raman Singh, has challenged the order dated 07.02.2013 [Annexure-5] passed by the Special Officer Home [Jail], Jaipur, whereby the Government has agreed with the opinion of the Advisory Committee, and has declined the release of the petitioner, a convicted-prisoner, on permanent parole.
The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, along with the other co-accused persons, was convicted and sentenced for offences under Sections 302/34, 307/149, 148, 324 and 460 I.P.C. by the Additional District Judge [Fast Track], Gangapurcity by his judgment dated 13.12.2001. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner had filed a criminal appeal before this Court, namely D.B. Criminal Appeal No.1066/2001. By judgment dated 12.09.2007, this Court had partly allowed the appeal filed by convicted-petitioner. It had convicted him for offence under Section 304-A I.P.C., and reduced his sentence from life imprisonment to ten years. According to the petitioner, so far, he has served five years and six months of his sentence. During his incarceration, he has availed of three regular paroles. While he was out on furlough, he has religiously followed the conditions of the parole. He has maintained peace and tranquility, and has not disturbed even tempo of Society. Since he was eligible for being released on permanent parole under the Rajasthan Prisoners [Release on Parole] Rules, 1958 ['the Rules of 1958, for short], he applied for the same. However, while considering the adverse report of the Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur, and of the Superintendent of Police, Sawai Madhopur, the Advisory Committee declined to release him on permanent parole. The recommendation of the Advisory Committee was duly sent to the Government. By order dated 07.02.2013, the Government has agreed with the recommendation made by the Advisory Committee, and has declined to release of the petitioner on permanent parole.
Mr. Lakhan Singh Tomar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised the following contentions before this Court:- firstly, the Advisory Committee has ignored the recommendations of the Superintendent of Jail, and of the Social Welfare Officer, both of whom had recommended his case for being released on permanent parole. Secondly, on three occasions the petitioner had come into the mainstream of the Society. During his parole periods, there was no complaint lodged by the complainant-party with regard to any threat or unlawful activity being committed by the petitioner. Despite the fact that he had maintained peace and tranquility, the Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur has claimed that releasing the petitioner on parole would have an adverse effect on society. Thirdly, according to the learned counsel, the conclusion is highly misplaced considering the previous conduct of the petitioner himself. Moreover, the said conclusion is not buttressed by any investigation done by the Police. Thus, the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur is a mechanical one. Similarly, is the case of the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Sawai Madhopur. Fourthly, according to Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958, in case the convicted-prisoner were to complete his third regular parole peacefully and without any complaint, he is entitled to have his case considered for permanent parole. Since there was no adverse conduct on the part of the petitioner, since he had reformed himself to the extent that the Superintendent of Jail had recommended his case for permanent parole, the Advisory Committee was not justified in accepting the adverse report of the Police. Moreover, even the Government while passing the impugned order did not consider the entire record, which was available before the Advisory Committee. Hence, the impugned order has been passed in a mechanical manner.
On the other hand, Mr. J.R. Bijarnia, the learned Additional Government Counsel for the respondents, has strenuously contended that it is the concern of the Police to maintain the law and order in the society. Therefore, the Police is justified in claiming that the release of a convicted-prisoner may create law and order problem in the village. Since both the reports of Superintendents were adverse, the Advisory Committee was certainly justified in dismissing the petitioner's case for permanent parole. Hence, the learned Additional Government Counsel has supported the impugned order.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the record, as well as, the reply submitted by the respondents.
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 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 Rules of 1958 clearly states that parole should be used as a means to teach good behaviour to the prisoner.
According to the petitioner's nominal roll, as of 15.05.2013, he has completed more than seven years, eleven months and four days. Admittedly, his case was recommended by the Superintendent Jail, who had seen the reform, which had occurred in the petitioner's conduct, during the period of incarceration. Since the petitioner's conduct in the jail was commendable, on three different occasions, he was granted the benefit of parole. Admittedly, during the period of furlough, he neither threatened the complainant-party, nor create any difficulties in his Village. In fact, peacefully he went out of the jail, and peacefully he returned back to the jail. Hence apparently, he religiously observed the conditions of the parole. Since the conduct of the petitioner has been laudable, both inside and outside the jail, it is rather surprising that the Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur has claimed that in case the petitioner were to be released on permanent parole, it would create law and order problem in the society at large. Obviously, such a conclusion is contrary to the conduct of the petitioner, both within and without the jail. Moreover, this conclusion does not seem to be based on any information collected by the Police. Thus, naturally the reports submitted by the Superintendent of Police are mechanical ones.
In catena of cases both the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court have opined that the Advisory Board should consider the entire record of the convicted-prisoner. They are required to take a holistic view of the record, rather than a piecemeal one. Keeping in mind the fact that the reports of both the Superintendent Jail and of the Social Welfare Officer were in favour of the petitioner, it is rather surprising that the Advisory Committee has been swayed by the adverse report of the Police. Repeatedly, this Court has held that the Advisory Committee should not accept an adverse report of the Police in ipse-dixit fashion. In fact, the Advisory Committee is expected to objectively assess the prisoner's record.
Since the Advisory Committee has ignored the relevant facts, and has relied on irrelevant information, this Court is of the opinion that the Advisory Committee has not objectively and legally assessed the situation. While considering the recommendations made by the Advisory Committee, the Government is also expected to objectively evaluate the situation. It should not accept the recommendation of the Advisory Committee instinctly, or as a knee-jerk reaction. Therefore, the impugned order dated 07.02.2013 is legally untenable.
For the reasons stated above, this Court allows this petition. This Court directs the respondents to release the petitioner, namely Raman Singh son of late Shri Amar Singh, on permanent parole, provided he furnishes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- [Rupees Fifty Thousand Only] with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Bharatpur, if not wanted in any other Criminal Case. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Bharatpur, may further put any other condition to secure the presence of the petitioner, if need be, in accordance with law. The petitioner is further directed to maintain peace and tranquility during the period of permanent parole.
A copy of this order shall be sent, for information and compliance, to the petitioner and the Superintendent, Central Jail, Bharatpur.
[Veerendr Singh Siradhana] J. [R.S. Chauhan] J. ashok/
Certificate - All corrections have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Ashok Kumar Songara/P.A.cum J.W.