Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. It is Stated that pursuant to the order of conviction and sentence passed u/s 302 IPC, petitioner Pramod Kumar Sen is undergoing sentence in Central Jail, Durg since 01.10.2017.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that having entitled to be released on parole as per the C.G. Prisoners Rule, 1989, petitioners Birendra @ Bindu; Dhaneshwar @ Nanu and Pramod Kumar Sen moved respective applications for grant of grant of parole of 10 days and the said application were forwarded by the respective Police Stations for temporary release of the petitioners. In turn, the Superintendent of Police to whom initially the recommendation was made to release on parole forwarded it to the District Magistrate of the respective Districts i.e., Kabirdham in case of Birendra @ Bindu, Rajnandgaon in case of Dhaneshwar @ Nanu and District Balod in case of Pramod Kumar Sen. It is contended that in all the 3 cases, family members of victim have objected to grant of bail and accordingly on the basis of statements of victims families, their applications for parole were rejected. It is contended that such recording of the statement of family of the victims is not contemplated under C.G. Prisoners Rule 1989. He further referred to case laws laid down in Dadu alias Tulsidas Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2000) 8 SCC 437; Inder Singh v. The State (Delhi Administration) 1978 SCC (Cri) 564 and Jeevan Verma Vs. State of M.P. 2002 (1) MPLJ 347 and would submit that in view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the applications of the petitioners for grant of parole ought to have been allowed.

12. As has been held by Supreme Court in Dadu alias Tulsidas Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2000 (8) SCC 437 , the parole is not a suspension of sentence and the convict continues to be serving the sentence despite granting of parole under the statute, rules, jail manual or the Government orders.

13. Here in the instant case, objections have been raised by the family members of the respective victims, therefore, that was taken as the ground for rejection of parole. Though the rule does not contemplate the opinion of the family members of the victim for granting parole, but this Court cannot ignore the facts mentioned in affidavit which has been placed on record by the Law Officer, Central jail, Raipur that during the period of March 2020 to 10th March, 2022, total 39 convicted have been granted parole and no-body has returned their own after completion of period of parole. Thereafter 21 convicts were arrested with the help of Police and out of them, 11 have again committed offence while they were on parole, for which, FIRs were registered. Though the mistakes done by other prisoners cannot be passed on to the present petitioners, but considering the fact that the petitioners have been convicted for heinous offence and are serving the life sentence, the practical aspect of the matter cannot be completely side-lined that once the parole is granted, there is a tendency that the accused/ convict would be at liberty as appears from the number of defaults and this message might have spread among the convict people to get released in the garb of parole. So to release the convicts on parole, a balance has to be arrived at to maintain the social safety of general public and right of convicts.