Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

It has been pointed out in these minutes dated 18.05.2012 that out of 11 persons who were granted parole on such heavy amount personal bonds and sureties, 4 have furnished the requisite sureties and bonds; and the remaining persons would be released upon furnishing the requisite sureties and bond. One of the rejected case has, of course, been placed for re-consideration after fresh report.

In a comprehension of what has been observed and narrated herein above, we have no option but to conclude that the District Parole Committee, Bhilwara has chosen to proceed squarely contrary to law at every stage apart from disproving our expectations and faith. We have to, rather regretfully, notice that the authorities, D.B. CRIMINAL PAROLE PETITION NO.4310/2012 MEHBOOB ALI V. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS.

In the reasonings as supplied by the District Parole Committee, Bhilwara in its meeting dated 18.05.2012, the authorities have assumed that an exorbitant increase in the amount of surety and bond would ensure returning of the prisoner to the prison after the period of parole. These reasonings do not refer even to any research, if at all made by any person, as to the percentage of the persons absconding after parole and its co-relation with the amount of bonds. The other side of the picture remains that with the person being in jail for a good number of years, in the normal course, his ties and bonds with the society are severed and for him, managing two sureties in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- each might well neigh be impossible. We have come across several of the prayers made to the Court by the prisoners for reducing the amount of bonds/sureties or releasing them only on their personal bond. Almost in all such cases, poor financial condition and adversities faced by the family are put forward as the grounds; and in most of the cases, the respondents have not been able to controvert the basic assertions about poor economic condition of the prisoner and his family.

Thus, mere raising of the amount of sureties and bonds cannot be considered achieving any object except depriving the prisoner of his chance of availing the parole. We have noticed that ordinarily and usually in such parole cases, the District Parole Committees have passed the orders asking the prisoner to furnish personal bond in D.B. CRIMINAL PAROLE PETITION NO.4310/2012 MEHBOOB ALI V. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS.

A generalised order for excessive amount of sureties and personal bond as made by the District Parole Committee, Bhilwara indiscriminately in relation to all the prisoners and maintaining the same despite our giving a chance for re-consideration, could only be a result either of insistence, or of ignorance, or of insensitivity, or of indifference, or of impassiveness. In any event, it is unfortunate.

It is high time that the concerned authorities are sensitized to act in accordance with law and to follow the letter and spirit of the orders passed by the Courts. We would now expect the Director General (Prisons) and so also the Home Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan to take serious note of the observations herein and to issue necessary instructions for corrective measures by all the concerned.