Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: parole system in Sampat Singh vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 13 March, 2026Matching Fragments
4. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and have carefully perused the record as well as the attendant facts and circumstances of the case. It is indeed true that the petitioner, while earlier extended the concession of permanent parole, had misused the liberty so granted in his favour and had committed an offence during the subsistence of the said parole, which ultimately culminated in his conviction. Nevertheless, it cannot be lost sight of that the petitioner has, as on date, undergone incarceration for an exceptionally long duration of nearly twenty-nine years. The breach of the conditions of parole admittedly occurred in the year 2016 and a considerable period of almost a decade has elapsed thereafter. The philosophy underlying the parole system is essentially reformative and rehabilitative in nature and not merely punitive. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the mere fact that the petitioner had earlier abused the concession of parole cannot, by itself, lead to an irrebuttable presumption that he would necessarily repeat such conduct in future or that the possibility of his reformation has been completely foreclosed. Having regard to the prolonged period of incarceration already undergone (Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 06:00:03 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:12006-DB] (4 of 8) [CRLW-317/2026] and the passage of considerable time since the earlier breach, the petitioner deserves to be afforded an opportunity to demonstrate his reformation and reintegrate into the social mainstream.
8. In view of the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that to achieve the object of parole and to give a further opportunity to the petitioner to make review, remorse or repentance of the crime and sin he committed, a further opportunity for rehabilitation to go in mainstream of society ought to have been given. The satisfactory conduct reported in jail and the reformative objective underlying the parole system, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner deserves to be granted one opportunity of parole, subject to strict conditions.