Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. In order to appreciate the common points involved in these two applications, it is necessary to quickly glance through the relevant facts leading lo these applications. In special criminal application No. 653 of 1984, the prisoner Dattarao Chimanrao is undergoing sentence of life imprisonment in Baroda Central Jail. The petitioner, Chimanrao Baberao Jadav. is the father of the prisoner. He states that his son, the convict, has applied to the Additional District Magistrate, Baroda to grant him parole leave and accordingly the said officer has sanctioned him 30 days' parole leave. However, the petitioner is not in a position to get his son released by making a deposit of Rs. 500/- as ordered. The petitioner is an old man getting pension of Rs. 200/- per month and he has to maintain grown up and small six members of his family and he finds it difficult to make both ends meet. He is therefore, not in a position to make a deposit of Rs. 500/- in the jail. He therefore, requests this Court to direct the authorities to release his son on parole leave on personal bond. It is obvious that the petitioner is not in a position to furnish any surety bond.

3. So far as the petitioner in special criminal application No. 663 of 1984 is concerned, he is undergoing life imprisonment in Baroda Central Jail. The competent authority has granted him parole leave for 15 days, but the petitioner is not in a position to avail of that leave on account of the fact that he is not in a position to furnish security of Rs. 500/- and he requests the intervention of this Court for issuance of suitable direction to the competent authority to release the petitioner on parole leave on personal bond. It is obvious that this petitioner is also not in a position to furnish any surety bond. It is submitted on behalf of the competent authority that as per the Prisoners (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') it is not possible for the competent authority to release the concerned petitioners on parole on personal bond without insisting upon their furnishing either cash security of Rs. 500/- or a surety bond to that effect, from any solvent surety. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the Division Bench of this Court, in special criminal application No. 756 of 1983, decided on 20th June, 1983, while interpreting Rule 24 of the Rules has held that the prisoner can be granted parole leave on his executing a surety bond in the sum of Rs. 500/- over and above his own personal bond and that if he is not in a position to execute the surety bond, he may be permitted to deposit an amount of cash security. The said judgment, as noted earlier, is rendered by the Division Bench consisting of A.M. Ahmadi and M.B. Shah, JJ.

Provided further that when a prisoner applies for parole for the purpose of appearing at an examination he will not be eligible to be released on parole unless the Inspector General of Prisons has passed an order permitting him to appear at such examination.

Now a mere look at the aforesaid rules shows that the competent authority can grant parole to a prisoner subject to his executing a surety bond and a personal bond in Forms A and B respectively. Form A is the proforma of the surety bond which can be got furnished by the prisoner as per Rules 6, 10 and 24. Rules 6 and 10 deal with grant of furlough to the concerned prisoner. Thus if surety bond is to be furnished by a prisoner who is either released on furlough or on parole, the proforma of such a surety bond will be one and the same. So far as Form B is concerned, it is a profoma for personal bond which has to be executed by the concerned prisoner who is either granted furlough leave under Rule 7 or parole leave as per Rule 24. The proforma for the personal bond, Form B, is common as per requirements of both the Rules 7 and 24. A literal reading of the aforesaid Rule 24, no doubt, indicates that before a prisoner can be released on parole leave, he has not only to execute a personal bond in Form B but also a surety bond in Form A. The words used in the rule are "subject to his executing a surety bond and a personal bond in Forms A and B respectively." The Division Bench of this Court in Special Criminal Application No. 756 of 1983 read literally the Rule 24 and observed as under :

28. Application of certain rules to parole cases - The provisions of Rules 8(5), 10, 11 and 12 shall mutatis mutandis apply in the case of release of prisoners on parole.

It is, therefore, clear that when Rule 24 is read with Rule 26, the provisions of Rule 10 also automatically get attracted to parole cases. So far as Rule 10 is concerned, the Full Bench in the aforesaid decision in terms held that in suitable cases, the competent authority can release a prisoner on his executing only personal bond. If that is so, the same latitude of Rule 10 gets automatically attracted to parole cases via Rule 28. Unfortunately, Rule 28 was not noticed by the Division Bench in the aforesaid case in Special Criminal Application No. 756 of 1983 and hence the Division Bench felt constrained to observe that in every case, the prisoner before being released on parole has to execute in addition to his personal bond a surety bond or he may be called upon to deposit cash security. Once it is held that Rule 10 also applies to parole cases, the ratio of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court squarely gets attracted to such cases. It must, therefore, be held that in suitable cases, the competent authority will have not only the power but even the duty to release the convict on personal bond once it is found at the concerned convict is in such a helpless condition that he cannot get a surety to stand for him and he has no money to give cash security. It must be kept in view that whether a convict is released on furlough or on parole, he is granted a temporary leave to go out of incarceration with a condition that he should return moment the period of leave is over, to the four walls of the prison, where he has to serve out the rest of his sentence. The insistence for surety bond or cash security is with a view to seeing that there is sufficient sanction imposed on him so that he may promptly return to the jail after his leave period, either of furlough or of parole, is over. Thus, the object of getting executed the surety bond or insistence for cash security is to secure reappearance of the convict. Under these circumstances, whether he is released on parole or on furlough, the rationale underlying the insistence of a surety bond or cash security in addition to the personal bond of the convict would remain the same. For getting the furlough leave a prisoner has to execute a surety bond under Rule 6 and a personal bond under Rule 7. For being released on parole leave, he has normally to fulfil both these requirements as laid down by Rule 24. However, as held by the Full Bench of this court, the strict requirement of Rule 6 can be waived in suitable cases, by reading Rule 6 in the light of Rule 10. If that is so, there is no reason why the requirement of furnishing the surety bond by the convict for being released on parole as per Rule 24 cannot be dispensed within suitable cases on a combined reading of Rule 24 and Rule 10 via Rule 28. In our view, therefore, the ratio of the decision of the Full Bench in Natia Jiria (supra) squarely applies even to parole cases.