Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kuiyaram vs State Of Raj on 1 February, 2012
Author: R.S. Chauhan
Bench: R.S. Chauhan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. CR. PAROLE WRIT PETITION No.12623/2011
Kuiyaram V/s. State of Rajasthan
Date of Judgment :: February 01, 2012
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.S. CHAUHAN
Mr. Sunil Ranwa for the petitioner.
Mr. Anil Upadhyay PP for the State.
A letter has been received from the convicted prisoner incarcerated in the Central Jail, Jodhpur. The said letter has been treated as a letter petition by this Court. Vide order dated 04.01.2012, this Court appointed Mr. Sunil Ranwa as an amicus curiae to argue the case on behalf of the petitioner.
Mr. Ranwa has pleaded that the petitioner has been convicted for the offences under Sections 304 Part-II and 498A IPC. For the former offence, he has been sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and for the latter offence, he has been sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Jalore. So far, the petitioner has completed five years, eleven months, and twenty one days including 2 the period as an under-trial and remission. Since he was eligible for being granted parole of twenty days, he had applied for the same. Vide order dated 30th November, 2009, he was granted the parole for twenty days. However, since he was unable to furnish two sureties of Rs.10,000/- each and a personal bond of Rs.20,000/-, he could not be released on parole. Subsequently, the petitioner moved an application for being released on his first parole. Again, vide order dated 12.09.2011, the petitioner was granted the benefit of parole. However, again he could not furnish two sureties of Rs.10,000/- each and a personal bond of Rs.20,000/-. Therefore, he has not been released on parole.
Mr. Ranwa pleads that poverty of a person cannot be used to prevent him from getting the benefit of parole. Therefore, the jail authorities should have accepted the personal bond of Rs.20,000/- and should have granted the benefit of parole.
On the other hand, Mr. Anil Upadhyay, the learned Public Prosecutor, has vehemently opposed the grant of parole.
According to the Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rule, 1958, parole is granted in order to motivate the convicted prisoners to reform themselves. 3 However, if the benefit of parole is being denied to the convicted prisoner on hyper-technical basis, obviously the grant of parole would not achieve its purpose. Even if the convicted prisoner could not furnish two sureties of Rs.10,000/- each, the jail authorities could accept the personal bond of Rs.20,000/-.
Therefore, this Court directs the respondents to take a personal bond of Rs.20,000/- from the petitioner and to grant him the benefit of parole in accordance with the order dated 12.09.2011.
The petitioner is directed to maintain peace and tranquility during the furlough of twenty days and to return back to the Jail on twentieth day of his parole.
With these observations, the petition is, hereby, allowed.
(R.S. CHAUHAN) J.
A.Asopa/-