Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Anil S/O Laxmi Narayan B/C Mehra vs State Of Rajasthan on 28 May, 2019
Author: Goverdhan Bardhar
Bench: Goverdhan Bardhar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 242/2019
Anil S/o Laxmi Narayan B/c Mehra, R/o Near Middle School, Bhoi
Mohalla, Kotadi, P.s. Gumanpura, Kota, Through His Father
Laxmi Narayan B/c Mehra, R/o Near Middle School, Bhoi Mohalla,
Kotadi, P.s. Gumanpura, Kota. (Presently Confined In Distt. Jail
Bundi)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary Department Of
Home, Govt. of Raj. Jaipur.
2. Distt. Magistrate Kota, Raj.
3. Superintendent Central Jail Kota, Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surendra Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N. S. Gurjar-Assistant
Government Advocate
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR Order 28/05/2019 Present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to assail the impugned order dated 11.02.2019, whereby the second regular parole for a period of 30 days to the accused-petitioner has been denied by the District Parole Advisory Committee, Kota.
Learned Public Prosecutor has stated that second parole has been denied to the petitioner on the ground that he is involved in sixteen other criminal cases.
(Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 04:33:11 AM)
(2 of 4) [CRLW-242/2019] Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner was granted first regular parole in October, 2017 and after completing the period of parole petitioner surrendered before the jail authority.
Counsel for the petitioner contends that after petitioner availed first parole he has not committed any crime and his conduct has been good. Counsel contends that after grant of first parole that was completed by the petitioner peacefully, the grounds existing earlier thereto cannot be construed against the petitioner to deny subsequent parole to which petitioner is entitled.
Learned Public Prosecutor has very fairly admitted that in 16 other criminal cases registered against the petitioner before availing the first parole, have culminated into acquittal of the petitioner except in the one case in which the petitioner is undergoing sentence.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor, we are of the view that adverse material available before grant of first regular parole cannot be used against the petitioner to deny the second regular parole. We also cannot ignore that except one case where the petitioner is undergoing sentence he has been acquitted in all other cases therefore the reasons stated by the District Parole Advisory Committee to deny the second regular parole to the petitioner are not justifiable and cannot be sustained.
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 (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 04:33:11 AM) (3 of 4) [CRLW-242/2019] 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. Parole is granted to the convict so that he is able to meet his family members and carry his obligations towards family. (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 04:33:11 AM)
(4 of 4) [CRLW-242/2019]
Release of convict on parole promotes tranquility, peace,
prosperity, happiness and the good will in the society.
Taking totality of the circumstances and for the reasons stated above, we accept the present petition. The impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is granted second regular parole for the period of 30 days from the date of release to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Kota. (GOVERDHAN BARDHAR),J (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J Ashu/15 (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 04:33:11 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)