Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Damodar vs State Of Raj And Ors on 13 December, 2017
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21393 / 2017
Damodar S/o Shri Ramjilal Dhakad, B/c Dhakad, R/o Veerampura,
Police Station Bayana, District Bharatpur (Raj.) (At Present Confined in
Central Jail Sewar, Bharatpur) Through His Neighbour :- Vinod Kumar
S/o Shri Vishram, B/c Brahman, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Veerampura,
Police Station Bayana, District Bharatpur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Inspector General, Prison, Jaipur.
2. The District Parole Advisory Committee Through the District
Magistrate, Bharatpur.
3. The Superintendent, Central Jail Sewar, Bharatpur.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Govind Prasad Rawat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakad, Public Prosecutor
_____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA / Order 13/12/2017 Instant parole petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred on behalf of the convict/petitioner praying interalia that the order dated 09.11.2017 passed by the District Magistrate, Bharatpur, whereby the parole was declined to the petitioner, be set aside.
The Court had issued notices to the respondents. A reply has been filed by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Bharatpur on behalf of the official respondents. The parole has been denied to the petitioner on the ground that there is every apprehension that in case, he is released on bail untoward incident may occur.
The Single Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court, in Inderjit Singh vs. State of Haryana [1996 Vol.3 RCR (Cr.) 845], (2 of 3) [CW-21393/2017] 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 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."
(3 of 3) [CW-21393/2017] 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.
The mere assertion of the police that the public peace will be disturbed without placing on record any material for the perusal of the court is not sufficient. It is a mere excuse and cannot be raised in every case by using words that 'public peace will be disturbed' until the State justify and place on record any substantial material that if petitioner is released on parole, the same will cause disturbance in the society.
In the present case, except, that the police had opined that if petitioner is granted parole, public peace shall stand disturbed, no material has been placed on record.
I find no reason to deny parole to the petitioner. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is granted first regular parole for a period of twenty-days from the date of release to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Bharatpur. A further direction is issued to the concerned authority to release the petitioner on first regular parole in consonance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Prisons (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958. The petitioner shall furnish the necessary personal bond and bond by the sureties to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Bharatpur.
(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA)J. ashok