1 D.B.Civil Writ Parole Petition No.12570/2013 [Bhanwar Das versus State & Ors.].DATE OF ORDER
: 06.01.2014 HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA By Post.
Mr.KR Bishnoi, Addl.
Govt.
Advocate..A letter addressed to this Court by convict prisoner Bhanwar Das S/o Nenu Das is treated as petition for writ.
The petitioner who is presently lodged at Central jail, Jodhpur was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 320/120-B and 201 Indian Penal Code under the judgment dated 31st October 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track No.2) Pali.
His case for grant of fiRs.parole, as per the provisions of the Rajasthan PrisoneRs.Release on Parole Rules, 1958 [for short 'the Rules of 1958'].was considered by the District Parole Advisory Committee, Pali in its meeting dated 24th August 2013.
The Committee denied regular parole to him by relying upon the adveRs.remarks made by the Superintendent of Police, Pali.
The Superintendent of Police, Pali in his communication dated 08.08.2013 stated that the convict prisoner is facing trial in seven cases pertaining to theft and abduction and he is also a history-sheeter of police station industrial area, Pali, thus, the grant of parole to him shall shake public confidence and shall give an adveRs.message to the public at large.
At the same time, the District Probation Officer, Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, Pali under his 2 communication dated 29th October, 2013 made a recommendation for grant of regular parole to the convict prisoner.
As per the District Probation Officer the convict prisoner is coming from lower eclones of the society.
He was residing in Village Hemavas i.e.at the distance of 20 Kms from the place, where the crime for which he has been convicted occurred.
The District Probation Officer also noticed that the grant of parole shall be useful for getting engagement of the daughter of the convict prisoner who is of marriageable age.
We have considered all the relevant facts and aspects of the matter.
It is not in dispute that the convict prisoner is facing trial in certain criminal cases and presently he is undergoing life term imprisonment being convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code inter alia.
The object of the Rules of 1958 is to make efforts to bring convict prisoners in regular social stream and also to rehabilitate them by awarding parole.
The first, second, third and annual paroles are prescribed under the Rules of 1958 are awarded as a part of same effort by intermittent lodging of convict prisoners with society.
These paroles are also useful for having and bearing social interaction as well as responsibilities by the convict prisoneRs.The parole advisory committee while considering a case for grant of parole should have an endeavour to achieve the objects of the Rules of 1958.
The Committee while examining the case of prisoners is required to see the positive as well as adveRs.effects in the event of grant of parole and while doing so the prime 3 consideration is to keep in mind the intention of enacting the parole provisions.
In the case in hand the District Parole Advisory Committee, Pali without assigning any reason ignored the positive recommendation made by the District Probation Officer and accepted the adveRs.remarks given by the Superintendent of Police.
No reason is given as to why the positive remarks and recommendation made by the District Probation Officer did not appeal to the Committee.
As per Superintendent of Police, Pali the convict prisoner is facing trial in seven cases related to theft and abduction.
The pendency of the criminal cases may be an eventuality but not the sole criteria to examine a case for grant or deny the parole.
The Committee, as a matter of fact, was supposed to examine the viability of bringing the convict prisoner in the regular social stream.
Parole could have been denied by the District Parole Advisory Committee on arriving at the conclusion that even the grant of parole will not restrict the convict prisoner from his re- involvement in the crimes or that shall serve the purpose of the parole provisions or there may be strong and well founded apprehension of absconding of the prisoneRs.No such conclusion is available in the decision of the District Parole Advisory Committee.
The only reason given to deny the parole is pendency of criminal cases pertaining to theft and abduction.
Nothing is said that as to how the pendency of the cases will adversely affect the object and purpose of the parole provisions.
4 Having considered all relevant facts and other ancillary circumstances, we are of the view that the decision taken by the District Parole Advisory Committee, Pali is not just.
Mere pendency of the cases is no sufficient reason to deny statutory parole, whereas the reasons given by the Probation Officer for grant of parole are sound and in consonance to the objects of the Rules of 1958.
Accordingly, this petition for writ is allowed.
The decision taken by the District Parole Advisory Committee is declared illegal.
The respondents are directed to allow fiRs.20 days regular parole to the convict prisoner Sr.Bhanwar Das provided he furnishes two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each and a personal bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur.
The Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur shall be at liberty to impose other terms and reasonable conditions while granting parole to the petitioner to ensure his return to the state custody.
[BANWARI LAL SHARMA]., J.
[GOVIND MATHUR]., J.
mamta