Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11. This very view was taken by the learned single Judge of this Court in Kashmir Singh v. State of Haryana, 1996(2) ALJ 73 : 1996 Cri LJ 3546 (Cri. Misc. No. 11825-M of 1995 decided on 24-2-1996).

12. As to whether the military authorities were justified in refusing parole to the petitioner is the second question that falls for determination of this Court. Order Annexure R1 was passed by the military authorities refusing him parole. In para 2 of this order, the military authorities have observed that as per existing rules, grant of parole in excess of 2 weeks can only be granted on exceptionally compassionate grounds whereas no such grounds have been mentioned in application forwarded to them i.e. Headquarters 29 Infantry Division C/o 56 APO. In my opinion, the order Annexure R1 does not take note of the fact that prisoner is also a human being. Like every other being, he has the urge to see the member of his family after a long separation. Release on parole is a step aimed at reformation and reclamation and is expected to provide opportunity to the prisoner to transform himself into a useful citizen since the rationale of Court sentence is social in defence coupled with personal correction, it is the continuing responsibility of the Court to ensure that the penological purpose of sentence is not defeated by the prison administration and the prisoners system responds to the purpose of sentence. Thus parole is part of penal and prison reform with a view to humanise the prison system. The purpose and object of granting, parole are to enable the inmate to maintain continuity with his family life and deal with family matters, to save the inmate from the evil effects of continuous prison life, to enable the inmate to maintain constructive hope and active interests in life. In Inder Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1978 SC 1091 : 1978 Cri LJ 766, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that instead of bolting the young men behind the high walls of a pristin and forgetting about them, humanising influences must be brought to bear upon them so that a better sense of responsibility, a kindlier attitude, behavioral maturity and values of a good life may be generated under controlled conditions. Article 21 of the Constitution is the jurisdictional root for this legal liberalism. In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration AIR 1978 SC 1675 : 1978 Cri LJ 1741 their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed in para 53 of the judgment as under:-