Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: parole rules in Rakesh @Diwan vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 5 May, 2022Matching Fragments
5. Ms. Kamna Vohra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted that the reason for dismissal was very clear and the Parole Rules have been followed. The denial of parole is not whimsical and could not be faulted. The Status Report has verified the petitioner‟s address.
6. The Nominal Roll has been also received from the jail, which records that the petitioner has been allotted work as „Lungar Sahayak‟ and has not been found violating any prison rule and his conduct for the last one year has been satisfactory. It is also to be noted that the Nominal Roll discloses that the petitioner has never been released on bail, parole or furlough.
2. Further, no special circumstances exist for grant of parole as the convict may file SLP from jail itself where free legal aid facility is available to all prisoners."
8. As regards the observation that filing of SLP constitutes no "special circumstance" as there is free legal aid available, suffice it to note that the courts have not agreed with this stance of the Government. Under Article 22(1) of the Constitution as well as Section 303 Cr.P.C., an accused person has been guaranteed with a Constitutional right to engage a counsel/pleader of his own choice. It is no doubt true that the Legal Services Authorities at all levels endeavour to provide excellent legal assistance to those in prison. But, to deny the convict an opportunity to engage with other counsel to enable him to make up his mind freely, as to whom he would wish to engage, would violate his constitutional rights to legal representation. In fact, it is because of the recognition of this right that the State Prison Rules, 2018 dealing with parole and furlough, recognizes that regular parole under Rule 1208 can be granted to a convict, to pursue filing of a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court.
9. While this ground in the impugned order does not hold water, the more serious objection is encapsulated in ground (1), namely, that the Rules itself do not permit a prisoner convicted under POCSO Act for parole. It would be useful to reproduce Rule 1211 for ready reference, as below: -
"1211. In the following cases, parole shall not be granted, except, if in the discretion of the competent authority special circumstances exist for grant of parole;
I. to VI. xxx xxx VII. If the prisoner is convicted under POCSO;"
10. But this bar is not absolute, for, the competent authority has been vested with "discretion" even in such cases, to grant parole, provided there were special circumstances. It is clear that the impugned order does not refer to the "special circumstances" that were required to be considered and were found insufficient to grant parole. Rather, it is clear that the "special circumstances" or rather their absence, have been referred to only in respect of the filing of an SLP, but not for the entitlement of the applicant for parole under Rule 1211(VII) of the State Prison Rules.