Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Maihboob Ali vs State Of Raj on 31 May, 2012
Author: Dinesh Maheshwari
Bench: Dinesh Maheshwari
D.B. CRIMINAL PAROLE PETITION NO.4310/2012
MEHBOOB ALI V. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
:: O R D E R ::
MEHBOOB ALI V. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS
D.B. CRIMINAL PAROLE PETITION NO. 4310/2012
Date of Order: 31st May 2012
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-II
Mr.K.R.Bhati, Amicus Curiae
Mr.K.R.Bishnoi, Government Counsel
Reportable BY THE COURT: (Per Dinesh Maheshwari, J.):
At the outset, it appears expedient to observe that at the initial stage in this case, when the District Parole Committee, Bhilwara was found dealing with the parole prayers under the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 ('the Rules of 1958') in a rather unjustified manner, we considered it proper to grant the said Committee an opportunity to see the reasons and to correct its approach. However, and despite this opportunity, the authorities concerned have chosen to ignore the law and so also the letter and spirit of the orders passed by this Court. We have, thus, no option but to pass the requisite orders so as to ensure adherence to law by the authorities concerned while, per force, commenting on their approach.
This petition has been registered on a letter dated 28.03.2012 as addressed to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court by the petitioner-prisoner Mehboob Ali son of Rustam Ali, who is at present D.B. CRIMINAL PAROLE PETITION NO.4310/2012 MEHBOOB ALI V. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS.
2serving the sentence at the Central Jail, Ajmer after being convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The petitioner-prisoner has stated the grievance against denial of first 20 days' parole after serving five years of sentence as follows:-
"उपर क व षय न र स दर न द ह क प र महबब अल! s/o रस म अल! ज न -व स य %- भ%ल ड ब हर( ) मससजद प स, र ससट! ल!, सजल भ%ल ड (र ज.) मल न स% ह।
पर म समय म. श%म 0 सजल ए 2 सश नय य ध%श, भ%ल ड
(र ज.) स ध र 302 I.P.C. म. आज% र स ) सज प र
लरभर 5 ष6 स न7!य र रह
8 अजमर म. सज भ9र रह ह।
प र रर!ब ह। प रर रर आरर दश दय %य ह। प र
परम 20 दद स%य न यसम ह ) पर ल पर ह द र ह च 9 ह।
पर जल म. आचरर अच@ ह। प र सम ज ) म9खय ध र स
जड9 च ह ह। वपज ज% स र स ह रय ह। म द
8 ह र
ब%म र रह % ह। प र ) ए 12 ष ) @ ट! बचच% ह। प र पर ल
पर ज र म ) स इल ज र बचच% ) पढ ई सलख ई )
वय सर परर र ) पर ररस ) वय सर र चह ह। प र
) पर ल सजल मसजसHट भ%ल ड द र प9सलस ररप ट आध र पर
ख ररज ह9ई र%। स र! पररससरन य( धय म. रख ह9य पर ल अन
आ शय ह।
पर
अ : श%म 0 ज% स स दर न द ह क प र परम 20
दद स%य न यसम ह ) पर ल स % 8 र आदश फरम .
क प र पर ल पर ज र सम ज ) म9खय ध र स ज9ड स ए 2
बचच( ) पर ररस र म ) स र स । प र श%म 0 ज%
सपरर र आज% आभ र! रहर । मह 8 प ह र%।"
In this matter, notices were issued on 04.05.2012 and the Government Counsel was granted time for filing reply. The reply on behalf of the respondents was filed on 15.05.2012 stating that as on 08.05.2012, the petitioner had actually served the sentence for 5 years 2 months and 7 days; and inclusive of remission, the total period of serving had been 5 years 10 months and 5 days. While placing on record the minutes of the meeting of the District Parole Committee, Bhilwara dated 29.02.2012, the respondents stated that the Committee considered the adverse report of the Superintendent of Police against the petitioner and, while allegedly 'recording cogent reasons', did not recommend the case of the petitioner-prisoner for parole. The relevant averments in the reply are reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-
D.B. CRIMINAL PAROLE PETITION NO.4310/2012 MEHBOOB ALI V. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS.3
"5. That the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner prisoner for granting him parole for a period of 20 days. In this regard, it is most respectfully submitted that earlier the petitioner prisoner was applied for grant of parole of 20 days, which was sent to the District Magistrate, Bhilwara from where from the reports of concerning authorities were called for. However, the Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara given adverse report regarding the petitioner - prisoner. A copy of the report of the Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara is enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure R/1 respectively.
6. Thereafter, matter was considered by the District Parole Committee, Bhilwara on 29.02.2012 and since the report of the Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara is adverse against the petitioner prisoner therefore, while recording cogent reasons, it did not recommend to grant of parole to the petitioner prisoner.
A copy of minutes of meeting dated 29.02.2012 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure R-2."
The contents of the so-called adverse report of the Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara, placed on record by the respondents as Annexure R/1, also need to be taken note of; and are reproduced as under:-
"उपर क व षय न र ए 2 पस2र%य पत सनदभ म. न द ह
क ब2द! श% महब9ब उफ सल!म प9त रस म बबस य % न स% ब हर( )
मससजद पस र भ%मर2ज सजल भ%ल ड 20 दद स परम
पर ल पर ररह ई ब ब र रध र! भ%मर2ज त
8 रध र! शहर
भ%ल ड स ज 2च र ई रई ज 2च स प य क ब2द! महबब 9 उफ
सल!म प9त रस म बबस य % न स% ब हर( ) मससजद पस र
भ%मर2ज अप % स य2 ) पत% श%म % शम ब ) ध रद र हररय र
स रल ट द स ब2द! ) पत% ) मत8 य9 ह रई। सजसस ब2द! र
ल! प रर स2खय 133/07 ध र 302, 498 ए भ .द2 .स2. म.
आज% र स ) सज भर 9 रह ह। म 8 श%म % शम ब
प%हर र डरम ल म. ह र म 8 वप श% ल %फ म हममद उ
परर र आ श म. ह। ब2द! सस9र ल पक आ श म. ह स ब2द!
पर ल पर @ ड पर भ% भ% रमभ%र घट घदट ह स % ह।
अ : ज 2च ररप ट आध र पर ब2द! पर ल पर @ ड ज
उरच ह!2 ह।"
When we searched for the so-called 'cogent reasons' said to have been assigned by the District Parole Committee, Bhilwara while rejecting the case of the petitioner in the minutes dated 29.02.2012 (Annex.R/2), it was found that the cases of three prisoners were rejected together in one paragraph with a cursory observation about the adverse report of the Superintendent of Police, D.B. CRIMINAL PAROLE PETITION NO.4310/2012 MEHBOOB ALI V. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS.
4Bhilwara. The so-called reasons in relation to the case of the petitioner, clubbed with two other cases, as occurring in the minutes dated 29.02.2012 read as under:-
"ब2द! श% द %ल ल पत 9 र च2द मर ठ न स% मलल हर रट म2दसXर हYल ब रम पल ससय र म णडलरढ, श% ररप सस2ह पत 9 श% र सस2ह र न . भर खड हYल द %प9र र म 2डल ए 2 श% महबब उफ सल!म प9त रस म बबस य % न . ब हर( ) मससजद पस र स%ट! ल! भ%ल ड सजल प9सलस अध%क भ%ल ड स पर ल पर ररह ह!2 र समब2ध% ररप ट प प ह स पर ल पर ररह ह!2 र न रय सलय रय ।"
It appears apposite to point out at this stage that the proposition as adopted by the District Parole Committee, Bhilwara and by the learned District Magistrate, Bhilwara came up before us on 16.05.2012 in another matter relating to a prisoner Mohd. Rafiq, resident of Baneda, in Parole Petition No. 4678/2012. The said prisoner Mohd. Rafiq had prayed for emergency parole because of serious ailment of his wife; and the Committee did recommend in its meeting dated 29.02.2012 grant of parole to him. However, the said prisoner Mohd. Rafiq sent the said letter petition while stating the grievance that he had been asked to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (two lacs) with two sureties in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (one lac) each and it was impossible for him to furnish the sureties of such larger amount. The Government Counsel pointed out that such quantum of personal bond and sureties had been fixed by the District Magistrate in his order dated 20.03.2012. We found absolutely no reason or justification wherefor the District Magistrate chose to put such an onerous condition for emergent release of the prisoner for the purpose of treatment of his wife. Hence, we allowed the said petition bearing number 4678/2012 alongwith another petition by the said prisoner for transfer to a D.B. CRIMINAL PAROLE PETITION NO.4310/2012 MEHBOOB ALI V. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS.
5different jail by a common order dated 16.05.2012; and therein, we disapproved the onerous condition regarding the amount of bonds with the following observations and comments:-
"We are unable to find any reason or justification wherefor the learned Magistrate has put such an onerous condition for the release of the petitioner for the purpose of treatment of his wife. If the entitlement for being released was not in dispute and the cause stated was not in doubt, the learned Magistrate ought to have taken a practical view of the matter and ought to have passed an order so as to serve the cause of justice rather than putting such prohibitory conditions of heavy bonds. We are unable to approve of the order as passed by the District Magistrate on 20.03.2012 insofar the amount of the bonds is concerned."
On 16.05.2012 itself, the present petition bearing number 4310/2012 also came up for consideration before us and, after going through the minutes of the District Parole Committee dated 29.02.2012, we found it rather shocking that several parole prayers had been rejected with cryptic and cursory one-liners and then, even in the case where the parole prayer was granted, the prisoner concerned was asked to furnish two sureties in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each, duly verified by the Tehsildar, apart from a personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. Although we had modified the order in relation to the said emergency parole case of Mohd. Rafiq [Petition No.4678/2012] yet, in relation to the present case of regular parole for the petitioner Mehboob Ali and other similar nature cases, it was considered proper to afford an opportunity to the District Parole Committee, Bhilwara to see the reasons and to act in accordance with law. Therefore, extending an opportunity to the authorities to correct themselves, we passed the order on 16.05.2012 in this case as under:-
"While going through the record of this matter, we are rather aghast at the manner of dealing with parole prayers by the D.B. CRIMINAL PAROLE PETITION NO.4310/2012 MEHBOOB ALI V. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS.6
District Parole Committee, Bhilwara and at the order as issued by the District Magistrate on 13th March 2012. This order, a composite one, has come up before us in relation to various cases. The case of the present petitioner- Mehboob Ali has been disposed of wholly cursorily and in a cryptic manner with one line observation and that too, clubbed with two more persons, that there was an adverse report received from the Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara. This nature order is directly at conflict with the repeated orders passed by this Court umpteen number of times that prayer for parole ought to be given adequate consideration and cannot be rejected on the ipse dixit of the authorities concerned; and that the order must be a reasonably speaking one, after consideration of all the facts and factors.
We have noticed yet another intriguing aspect that indiscriminately, in relation to all such cases where parole prayer has been granted, the convicts have been asked to furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2 Lacs and two sureties in the sum of Rs.1 Lac each. Not a whisper of the reason worth the name is available on record as to why that much of substantially higher amount bonds and sureties are required and that too from all the convicts?
While putting our displeasure on record at the manner of dealing with the matters by the District Parole Committee, Bhilwara, we consider it proper to grant the said Committee an opportunity to correct its approach and to deal with the matters in accordance with law and to re-consider all the decisions as taken on 29.02.2012, except in relation to any such case for which any order has been passed by any court, within period of three days from today.
It shall be required of the learned Government Counsel to place on record compliance report on or before 21st May 2012.
A copy of this order be sent to the Director General (Prisons) and so also to the Home Secretary, who shall be required to take note of the observations herein and to issue necessary instructions for corrective measures by all the concerned. Any laxity in this regard shall henceforth be viewed seriously by this Court and shall be dealt with appropriately.
Put up on 22nd May 2012."
Thus, even while putting on record our dissatisfaction over the manner of dealing with the matter by the District Parole Committee, Bhilwara, we granted an opportunity to the authorities concerned to act in accordance with law and to correct their approach. Obviously, we reposed faith on the authorities concerned that they would see the reasons; would look into the law and ratio of umpteen number of decisions of the Courts to the effect that parole prayers cannot be rejected simply on the ipse dixit police reports;
D.B. CRIMINAL PAROLE PETITION NO.4310/2012 MEHBOOB ALI V. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS.
7and would further act in accord with law that the conditions for release of any person, particularly those regarding bonds, ought to be of reasonable nature. However, as shall be noticed hereafter, the authorities concerned have chosen to proceed their own ways, even if beyond and contrary to law.
The learned Government Counsel has now placed before us the minutes of the meeting of the District Parole Committee, Bhilwara dated 18.05.2012, said to have taken place pursuant to our above- quoted order dated 16.05.2012. As we had noticed that in the earlier meeting dated 29.02.2012, several of the cases were rejected without reasons, now what the District Parole Committee has done in its meeting dated 18.05.2012 is to elaborate on the ipse dixit in relation to every case while referring to the details of the offence committed by the prisoner. Though we would not go into the other cases which are not before us at present but the so-called supplying of reasons now in relation to the petitioner prisoner Mehboob Ali son of Rustam Ali in the meeting dated 18.05.2012 deserves to be taken note of; and the so-called reasons are reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-
"ब2द! श% महबब उफ सल!म प9त रस म न स% ब हर( )
मससजद पस र ससट! ल! परम पर ल पर ररह र
समबनध म. सजल प9सलस अध%क , भ%ल ड अ र र य क बनद!
अप % स य2 ) पत% श%म % शम ब ( ) ध रद र हररय र स रल
ट द स मत8 य9 ह रई ह, सजसस बनद! र ल! प रर
स2खय 133/07 ध र 302, 498 ए भ .द2 .स2. म. आज% र स ) सज
भ9र रह ह। म 8 श%म % शम ब ( प%हर र डरम ल म. ह र
म8 वप श% ल %फ म हममद उ परर र आ श म. ह।
बनद! सस9र ल पक आ श म. ह स बनद! पर ल पर @ ड स
भ% भ% रमभ%र घट घदट ह स अ2क र ह9ए बनद!
परम पर ल पर ररह र उरच ह!2 म ह।उप न दश , स म सज ,
नय य ए 2 अरध रर व भ र, भ%ल ड पर ल पर ररह र )
ररप ट म. अ पवत पद ) र% क न 9 बठ म. उपससर उप न दश ,
स म सज नय य ए 2 अरध रर व भर प रर ) रमभ%र
दख ह9ए र प9सलस अध%क भ%ल ड द र ब य थय(
मधय जर रख ह9य पर ल पर ररह र पर असहमन वयक )।
ससमन ब द व च र- व मश न रय सलय क बनद! अप % पत% )
D.B. CRIMINAL PAROLE PETITION NO.4310/2012 MEHBOOB ALI V. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS.
8
ध रद र हररय र स रल ट र हतय र ज9म भ .द2 .स2. ) ध र
302 ह सज ह9ई ह। बनद! सस9र ल पक ल( म. इस व रद
आक श ह र बनद! पर ल पर @ट ज पर आपस म. रमभ%र
घट घदट ह स % ह। प9 : आपर रध 8 तय भ% रर ह स ह
ए 2 बनद! पर ल पर @ ड ज पर श सन वय सर भ2र ह पर
अ2दश ह। अ : बनद! पर ल पर ररह ह!2 क य ज स सममन
स न रय सलय रय ।"
In relation to our comments about unreasonableness of the excessive amount of surety bonds, the District Parole Committee has chosen to maintain its order while supplying the reasons in the following:-
"स%- सजल पर ल ससमन ) बठ दद 2 29/02/2012
य ह! व रर दद 2 13/03/2012 म. 11 बसनदय( पर ल पर
@ड न रय सलय रय ह, सजसम. बनद! 02.00 ल ख बनध
पत ए 2 01.00- 01.00 ल ख द जम न य( जम पत च ह रय
ह। सज आध र यह रह र क अरध र सश बनध पत ए 2
जम पत ल रर बनद! जम न य( ) म सस ससरन
बनद! फर र ह!2 ह ब ब रहर%। पर ल अ रध सम प ह
पशच 0 बनद! प9 : जल म. द खखल ह स र ह! बनध पत ए 2
जम पत स : न रस ह ज य.र। स र ह! पर ल अ रध दXर
जम % अरध जम ह रर बनद! ) न रर % रख. र
यर समय प9 : बनद! र रह
8 म. प श र ) स9न स_ र. र।
इस रर पर ल मट! द र बसनदय( ) बनध पत ए 2 जम % पत )
र सश न ध रर ) रई ह, ज उरच म र यर रख% ज % ह ए 2
न म बसनदय( समबनध म. पर ल पर ररह र ब ब बठ दद 2
29/02/2012 सलय रय न रय यर रख ज ह।"
It has been pointed out in these minutes dated 18.05.2012 that out of 11 persons who were granted parole on such heavy amount personal bonds and sureties, 4 have furnished the requisite sureties and bonds; and the remaining persons would be released upon furnishing the requisite sureties and bond. One of the rejected case has, of course, been placed for re-consideration after fresh report.
In a comprehension of what has been observed and narrated herein above, we have no option but to conclude that the District Parole Committee, Bhilwara has chosen to proceed squarely contrary to law at every stage apart from disproving our expectations and faith. We have to, rather regretfully, notice that the authorities, D.B. CRIMINAL PAROLE PETITION NO.4310/2012 MEHBOOB ALI V. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS.
9particularly those relating to the District Parole Committee, Bhilwara have not only belied our faith but have come out with the propositions as if standing adversarial to the observations of this Court.
Taking up first the plea of parole by the petitioner Mehboob Ali, as noticed, earlier his plea was rejected by the Committee without spelling out any reason. The report of the Superintendent of Police whereupon his prayer was declined gives out that the prisoner was undergoing sentence for slicing the throat of his wife with a sharp weapon; and that father and other members of the family of the victim were emotionally charged and, therefore, releasing of prisoner on parole might lead to any serious incident. On the aforesaid aspects: one relating to the nature of offence committed by the prisoner; and second about his in-laws being furious, the Committee has chosen to arrive at a conclusion that there was a likelihood of breach of peace upon the convict being released on parole and has taken it to be sufficient to reject the prayer for parole. The approach of the District Parole Committee, Bhilwara remains dismal and disappointing; it could only be disapproved.
The suggestion of the Committee with reference to the facts of the case makes out as if the Committee was trying to take up an unwarranted exercise of pronouncing the prisoner guilty. It had no jurisdiction to do so. Such an exercise had already been carried out by the Court competent, the necessary pronouncement has already been made, and the prisoner has already been sentenced. The need at the given stage, while considering grant of parole, has been to look ahead; and to, at least, peep into the principles of rehabilitation D.B. CRIMINAL PAROLE PETITION NO.4310/2012 MEHBOOB ALI V. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS.
10and reformation, rather than being stuck only with the theories of retribution and deterrence.
If we go by the reasonings of the District Parole Committee, Bhilwara in abstract, the same could be applied practically to every case with a variation about the degree of criminality of action for which the prisoner is behind the bars. If such reasonings are countenanced, the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 would be rendered a dead-letter, and rather redundant. The District Parole Committee has failed to consider that in the background of almost all the matters of present nature, there would obviously be a criminality of conduct that had led to the prisoner concerned being convicted and sentenced. Such background aspects, by themselves, are not decisive while considering the prayer for parole.
The propositions as adopted by the District Parole Committee, Bhilwara stand directly at conflict with the salutary principles governing grant of parole. This Court has, time and again, laid down and reiterated that the object of granting parole is to make necessary efforts to rehabilitate a convict prisoner in the main-stream of society. A balanced approach is, therefore, required and merely the background of prisoner-convict cannot be taken as the reason sufficient to deny him parole if he is otherwise entitled thereto. It cannot be assumed that there would never be any chance of a convict taking the path of reformation.
At this juncture, noteworthy it is that under the Rules of 1958, the first parole is not granted before serving one-fourth of the sentence [vide Rule 9]; and in the cases of life imprisonment, that D.B. CRIMINAL PAROLE PETITION NO.4310/2012 MEHBOOB ALI V. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS.
11period starts after 5 years of imprisonment [vide Rule 9 with Rule 15]. Noteworthy further it is that while granting parole, it is the jail conduct that is required to be kept in view as one of the essential attributes. If a prisoner earns the right of a parole after serving a part of sentence with good jail conduct; and his eligibility and entitlement, as per the Rules of 1958, is otherwise beyond doubt, we are clearly of the view that he cannot be denied parole on the reasons as stated by the District Parole Committee, Bhilwara. Surprisingly, in the present case, the District Parole Committee, Bhilwara has not even attended on the aspect relating to the jail conduct of the petitioner. Nothing of any shortcoming in the jail conduct of the petitioner has been pointed out by the respondents in the reply.
So far the likelihood of disturbance to the public tranquility is concerned, the kind of apprehensions as stated by the authorities are, again, of generalised inferences without any specification. We have reiterated, time and again, that maintaining of law and order and prevention of breach of peace are the aspects required to be taken care of by the authorities concerned. The authorities cannot suggest that they would not take care to maintain peace and tranquility in the society during the parole term of the prisoner or even otherwise.
It may also be noticed in the passing that it is always permissible for the authorities concerned to impose reasonable terms and conditions for availing of parole by a prisoner [vide Rule 7]; and the same could relate to maintaining of law and order also. It is also noteworthy that even when the parole is granted, a case could always be reviewed in any given eventuality and the prisoner's D.B. CRIMINAL PAROLE PETITION NO.4310/2012 MEHBOOB ALI V. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS.
12parole could even be revoked [vide Rule 16]. We are constrained to observe that the authorities concerned, instead of examining the scheme of the Rules and acting thereunder, have chosen to adopt a wholly illegal course of rejecting the parole case on wholly baseless grounds. A parole case cannot be dealt with in this fashion. Every individual case is required to be examined on its own merits while keeping in view the meaning and purport of the Rules and so also the observations made by this Court in its orders.
So far the petitioner-prisoner is concerned, we are unable to find any justification to deny him first parole for 20 days; and we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the present petition is required to be allowed.
Although so far the case of the present petitioner Mehboob Ali is concerned, the occasion for requiring him to furnish personal bond and the sureties did not arise but, as observed above, we had noticed the approach of the authorities concerned on this aspect in the case of Mohd. Rafiq (supra) and then, in an overall comprehension of the minutes dated 29.02.2012, we made the comments in the orders dated 16.05.2012 as passed in Mohd. Rafiq's case and so also in the present case with the hope and trust that the authorities would correct their approach. However, the District Parole Committee, Bhilwara has chosen to stick to its ground and has now stated rather baseless reasons for asking the prisoners to furnish heavy bonds/sureties.
It is rather painful to notice that the approach of the District Parole Committee, Bhilwara in regard to the quantum of the bonds/sureties has been of proceeding on a few assumptions, D.B. CRIMINAL PAROLE PETITION NO.4310/2012 MEHBOOB ALI V. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS.
13totally detached from the ground realities and without looking at the requirements of law. Of course, it is always permissible to impose reasonable conditions for releasing a prisoner from incarceration but, so far the amount of personal bond and sureties is concerned, the same has to be reasonable and cannot be excessive. The basic principles in this regard could be noticed with reference to Section 440 of the Code of Criminal Procedure occurring in its Chapter XXXIII making provisions as to bail and bonds that reads as under:-
"440. Amount of bond and reduction thereof.- (1) The amount of every bond executed under this Chapter shall be fixed with due regard to the circumstances of the case and shall not be excessive.
(2) The High Court or Court of Session may direct that the bail required by a police officer or Magistrate be reduced."
The legislature has taken care to provide that the amount of every bond should be fixed with due regard to the circumstances of the case and should not be excessive.
In the case of Moti Ram & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh:
AIR 1978 SC 1584, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had passed an order for release of the petitioner on bail to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The Magistrate ordered that a surety in the sum of Rs.10,000/- be produced. The petitioner could not afford to procure such an amount or a surety of sufficient prosperity. Further, the Magistrate demanded sureties from the petitioner's own district;
and refused to accept the surety-ship of his brother whose assets were in another district. While observing that there was need for liberal interpretation in the areas of social justice, individual freedom and indigent's rights, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that bail covers both release on one's own bond, with or without sureties; and D.B. CRIMINAL PAROLE PETITION NO.4310/2012 MEHBOOB ALI V. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS.14
as to when sureties should be demanded and what sum should be insisted, are dependent on variables. In the context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the ground realities and observed as under:-
"30. Even so, poor men - Indians are, in monetary terms, indigents
- young persons, infirm individuals and women are weak categories and courts should be liberal in releasing them on their own recognisances - put whatever reasonable conditions you may.
31. It shocks one's conscience to ask a mason like the petitioner to furnish sureties for Rs.10,000. The magistrate must be given the benefit of doubt for not fully appreciating that our Constitution, enacted by "We, the People of India', is meant for the butcher, the baker and the candle-stick maker - shall we add, the bonded labour and pavement dweller."
In the case of Munish Bhasin & Ors. Vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) & Anr.: AIR 2009 SC 2072, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the case where a condition was imposed by the High Court while granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the case registered under Section 498-A and 406 IPC for making payment of the amount of maintenance to the wife and child. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that while exercising discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C., neither the High Court nor the Sessions Court would be justified in imposing freakish conditions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, inter alia, observed,-
"It is well-settled that while exercising discretion to release an accused under Section 438 of the Code neither the High Court nor the Sessions Court would be justified in imposing freakish conditions. There is no manner of doubt that the Court having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case can impose necessary, just and efficacious conditions while enlarging an accused on bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. of the Code. However, the accused cannot be subjected to any irrelevant condition at all......"
The principles aforesaid with the relevant and contextual variation would apply to every case where a person is required to D.B. CRIMINAL PAROLE PETITION NO.4310/2012 MEHBOOB ALI V. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS.
15furnish bond and sureties for being released from detention. The conditions ought to be reasonable and cannot be of such nature as to be prohibitive, which may frustrate the very object of the order granting the prayer for release.
In the reasonings as supplied by the District Parole Committee, Bhilwara in its meeting dated 18.05.2012, the authorities have assumed that an exorbitant increase in the amount of surety and bond would ensure returning of the prisoner to the prison after the period of parole. These reasonings do not refer even to any research, if at all made by any person, as to the percentage of the persons absconding after parole and its co-relation with the amount of bonds. The other side of the picture remains that with the person being in jail for a good number of years, in the normal course, his ties and bonds with the society are severed and for him, managing two sureties in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- each might well neigh be impossible. We have come across several of the prayers made to the Court by the prisoners for reducing the amount of bonds/sureties or releasing them only on their personal bond. Almost in all such cases, poor financial condition and adversities faced by the family are put forward as the grounds; and in most of the cases, the respondents have not been able to controvert the basic assertions about poor economic condition of the prisoner and his family.
Thus, mere raising of the amount of sureties and bonds cannot be considered achieving any object except depriving the prisoner of his chance of availing the parole. We have noticed that ordinarily and usually in such parole cases, the District Parole Committees have passed the orders asking the prisoner to furnish personal bond in D.B. CRIMINAL PAROLE PETITION NO.4310/2012 MEHBOOB ALI V. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS.
16and around the sum of Rs.40,000/- - 50,000/- and one or two sureties in the sum of Rs.20,000/- - 25,000/- with, of course, necessary variation in the amount with reference to the facts and circumstances of a given case. This Court has also ordinarily passed the orders for release of the prisoners on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each while leaving it open for the Superintendent of Jail concerned to impose other terms and conditions in accordance with the Rules of 1958. We find it rather intriguing that the District Parole Committee, Bhilwara has chosen to travel beyond the ordinary and usual course and has come out with rather unusual condition as if to negate the whole of the scheme of the Rules of 1958.
A generalised order for excessive amount of sureties and personal bond as made by the District Parole Committee, Bhilwara indiscriminately in relation to all the prisoners and maintaining the same despite our giving a chance for re-consideration, could only be a result either of insistence, or of ignorance, or of insensitivity, or of indifference, or of impassiveness. In any event, it is unfortunate.
It is high time that the concerned authorities are sensitized to act in accordance with law and to follow the letter and spirit of the orders passed by the Courts. We would now expect the Director General (Prisons) and so also the Home Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan to take serious note of the observations herein and to issue necessary instructions for corrective measures by all the concerned.
So far the case of the petitioner-prisoner is concerned, for the reasons foregoing, this parole petition is allowed; and the D.B. CRIMINAL PAROLE PETITION NO.4310/2012 MEHBOOB ALI V. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS.
17proceedings of the District Parole Committee, Bhilwara dated 29.02.2012 and dated 18.05.2012 qua the petitioner are set aside. The petitioner-prisoner Mehboob Ali son of Rustam Ali is ordered to be released on regular parole for a term of 20 days on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) along with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each, to the satisfaction of Superintendent, Central Jail, Ajmer, who may impose other terms and conditions in accordance with the Rules of 1958. It is made clear that the parole term of 20 days shall be counted from the date of actual release of the petitioner.
A copy of this order be sent to the Director General (Prisons) and the Home Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan. [NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-II],J. [DINESH MAHESHWARI],J. MK