Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

R.S. Chauhan, JJ.

1. Repenting his sins, serving his life imprisonment term, the petitioner, Pappu Khan, sought few gasps of fresh air by pleading for regular parole under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisons (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958 (henceforth referred to as the 'Parole Rules'). Involved in a murder case on 25th March, 1999, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment vide judgment dated 19th July, 2002 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 Kishangarh Bas.

2. According to the petitioner so far he has served six years and four months imprisonment. Since, the petitioner was eligible for the regular parole of twenty days under Rule 9 of the Parole Rules, he applied for the same. However, vide order dated 7th July, 2005 the District Parole Committee was pleased to reject his parole application. Consequently, the writ petitioner before us.

3. Mr. Satya Pal Poshwal the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has contended that the petitioner's case for parole has been rejected because of the adverse police report against him. According to the said police report in case, the petitioner were released, the law and order situation would be disturbed. According to the learned Counsel the police has mechanically submitted the report. There is no evidence available on record for the police to come to such adverse conclusion against him. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel, the Advisory Committee has based its decision on irrelevant consideration. Thus, the order dated 4th July, 2005 should be quashed.

6. The welfare State cannot afford a large non productive population to be fed and to be looked after. After all, such a large prison population is a heavy burden on the State Exchequer. Therefore, it is also in the interest of the State to reform the prisoners, to teach them techniques and skills which would ensure a source of livelihood to them after they are released from jail. Although fundamental rights of the prisoners are curtailed by incarceration, but the flame of liberty continues to burn even in the dark corners of the prison cells. The Parole Rules emanate from Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is, indeed, trite to state that Article 21 of the Constitution of India, is the heart of the Constitution. Therefore, while dealing with the parole cases, it is essential to keep in mind the criminological and constitutional philosophy which underlines the Parole Rules.

7. Considering the importance of the reformative theory of the punishment, in 1958 the State of Rajasthan promulgated the Parole Rules. According to these Rules, parole is divided into two categories; firstly, the regular parole which is granted to a convicted prisoner after he has completed certain period for regular parole which in Hindi is referred to as a "Hak ki parole". Secondly, Rule 10 A of the Rules, contains the provisions for emergency parole which is granted to the convicted prisoner in case, of death or illness of hear relatives or marriage in his family or his property is threatened by natural calamities. By judicial interpretation the beneficial provisions of Rule 10A of the Parole Rules have also been extended to include cases when the convicted prisoners need to appear for examinations. Rule 13 spells out the philosophy behind Parole Rules when it emphatically states that parole is to be used for teaching good behaviour to the convicted prisoner. Although Rule 13 also states that parole cannot be claimed as of right, but the Parole Rules certainly bestow the right of consideration upon the convicted prisoners. Once, a convicted prisoner has completed one fourth of his sentence and observes good behaviour during this period of incarceration, then he becomes eligible to have his case considered for the first parole of 20 days by the Advisory Committee constituted under the Parole Rules.