Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Gulshan Bano vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 2 February, 2018
Author: P.K. Lohra
Bench: P.K. Lohra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14592 / 2017
Gulshan Bano W/o Yakub Khan, By Caste Kayamkhani Musalman,
Resident of Ward No. 7, Bhadra Tehsil Bhadra District
Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Department of
Home, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director General of Jail, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Bikaner.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.S. Gour
For Respondent(s) : Mr. O.P. Rathi, Public Prosecutor.
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA
Order 02/02/2018 Petitioner, wife of convict Yakub Khan, has laid this petition seeking permanent parole for her husband who has already undergone sentence for more than 8 years, out of total sentence of 10 years' rigorous imprisonment, handed down to him for offence under Section 376 IPC.
It is, inter-alia, pleaded in the petition that after conviction, convict Yakub Khan has availed regular parole of 20, 30 & 40 days and upon completion of parole period has reported to the jail authorities timely. It is also submitted in the petition that during incarceration conduct of the convict prisoner was satisfactory and (2 of 4) [CW-14592/2017] therefore applying rigor of Section 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (for short, 'Rules of 1958'), he may be released on permanent parole. Petitioner has also craved in the petition for quashing order dated 21st of February 2017 (Annex.1) passed by State Level Parole Committee declining permanent parole to her husband Yakub Khan.
On behalf of State, reply to the petition is submitted. In its reply, the State has defended the impugned order of State Level Parole Committee passed qua husband of the petitioner. While referring to the period of incarceration of convict Yakub Khan, the State in its reply has furnished following details uptill 15 th of November 2016.
Year(s) Month(s) Day(s) Sentence 6 6 27 served Under trial 1 6 21 Jail remission 1 4 6 Total 9 5 24 State remission - - - Total 9 5 24
It is noteworthy that State has not joined issue with the factum of convict Yakub's availing regular paroles and his jail conduct. Relying on the reply submitted by the State, it is crystal clear that uptil 15.11.2016 convict prisoner has served sentence of 9 years 5 months and 24 days including jail remission and State (3 of 4) [CW-14592/2017] remission. After 15.11.2016, more than a year has elapsed and therefore by this time the convict has served substantive sentence for almost 7 years 9 months and if State remission and jail remission is included, then same exceeds more than 10 years and 6 months. Therefore, in that background, the impugned decision of the State Level Parole Committee cannot be sustained being contrary to the philosophy behind parole and permanent parole. That apart, in the considered opinion of this Court, the State Level Parole Committee has considered certain facts and circumstances which were not relevant and germane to the matter while declining permanent parole to the convict prisoner. I am constrained to observe that the State Level Parole Committee has not focused on the requirements envisaged under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958 and has also not paid attention to a very vital issue as to whether prisoner is likely to relapse into crime. Division Bench of this Court, in Dhanraj Saini & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [2012(4) WLN 144], while examining case of permanent parole to an eligible convict prisoner, made following observations:
"It is a sorry state of affairs where eligible convicted prisoners for permanent parole have repeatedly approached this Court in order to goad the State into action. The functionaries of the State have to be alive to their responsibilities towards a convicted prisoner. Convicted prisoners cannot be treated as residents of a twilight zone. They cannot be treated a subject matter for seminars and conferences, yet, forgotten and forlorn. The respondents have a constitutional duty to restore the personal liberty of a convicted prisoner, if he is eligible for the same. Similarly, they have a statutory duty tinder the parole rules to grant the benefit of permanent parole to those who are eligible for it. By maintaining a studied silence over their constitutional and statutory rights, the State functionaries are violating the constitutional philosophy, and the legal rights of the convicted (4 of 4) [CW-14592/2017] prisoners. By their utter inaction, they are violating the very essence of the reformative theory. They are failing in their sacred duty towards the prison population."
In view of foregoing discussion and considering long incarceration of the convict prisoner, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned order Annex.1 dated 21.02.2017, passed by State Level Parole Committee, is quashed and set aside qua convict prisoner Yakub Khan S/o Mustaq Khan and the respondents are directed to release convict Yakub Khan on permanent parole provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of Superintendent, Central Jail, Bikaner while incorporating undermentioned conditions:
(a) that he shall report to the concerned police station in the first week of January each year;
(b) that he will lead a peaceful life without disturbing social harmony.
(P.K. LOHRA)J.