This order granted first regular parole to a convict petitioner confined in Central Jail Sewar. The Court set aside the District Magistrate's order declining parole, holding that the State failed to substantiate its claim of likely public disturbance.
Impugned order setting aside; Petitioner granted first regular parole for twenty days.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 22407 / 2017
Ram Mohan S/o Shri Jaswant Singh, B/c Jat, R/o Khedi Devi Singh, Police Station Nadbai, District Bharatpur (Raj.) (At Present Confined in Central Jail Sewar, Bharatpur.) Through His (Jija) Brother in Law:Meghshyam Singh S/o Shri Mahendra Singh, B/c Jat , Aged About 36 Years, Sabora, Police Station Kumher,district Bharatpur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Govind Prasad Rawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakad, Public Prosecutor
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
/ Order
02/01/2018
Instant parole petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred on behalf of the convict/petitioner praying interalia that the convict-petitioner be granted first regular parole for a period of twenty-days, and the order dated 16.02.2017 passed by the District Magistrate, Bharatpur, whereby the parole was declined to the petitioner, be set aside.
The Court had issued notices to the respondents. A reply has been filed by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Bharatpur on behalf of the official respondents. The parole has been denied to the petitioner on the ground that there is every apprehension that in case, he is released on parole there may be breach of peace.
(2 of 3)
[CW-22407/2017]
The Single Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court, in Inderjit Singh vs. State of Haryana [1996 Vol.3 RCR (Cr.) 845] , while interpreting the right of convict to parole under Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968, had observed as under:-
“4. Under Section 6 of the Act, parole can be declined on the ground if the release of the petitioner is likely to endanger the security of the State or maintenance of public order. These two grounds are not attracted in the present case is as much as security of State cannot be jeopardised by any stretch of imagination. Security of State refers to crimes intended to overthrow the Government, waging of war or internal or external aggression against the Government and such like acts. Similarly maintenance of public order refers to affray, disturbance of peace and the like. It is not made clear in the report of the Government that how his release is likely to attract the above two grounds referred in Section 6 of the Act. The State is not a weak organ that it cannot conduct the maintenance of the public order and is not in a position to keep a watch on the activities of the petitioner for the purposes of public order. The petitioner is not so strong so as to create a situation where the public order is in danger. It seems the grounds have been taken simply to deny the petitioner his right to come out of the jail under the provisions of the Act. However, if the petitioner in any way violates the conditions of release on parole, enough safeguards are provided under Section 8 of the Act and Section 9 of the Act.
5. It cannot be disputed that the purpose of release on parole is very useful to change the outlook of a criminal so as to make him a useful member of the society. If he is not allowed to be released on parole, to repair the house, it can have a very bad effect on his attitude towards the society. The stress these days is to hate the crime and not the criminal, rather to give him all the possible avenues to bring him on the path which may lead to bring peace in the society and to get rid of a criminal tendency in a criminal, and one of the ways to do it is to allow him to come out of the cold walls of the jail and to associate with the members of his family so as to carry out the obligations of a social human being so as to bring tranquillity, happiness and prosperity in the society. Many of time, crime is the result of socio-economic milieu and it is the duty of the agencies maintaining the public order and running criminal justice system, to see that the crimes are minimized and there is peace and tranquillity in the society and one of the ways to achieve this object is to give effect to social legislation and salutary provisions of the Act so that the institution of prison which is now being run as not concentration camps with all its brutalities and devoid of human spirit and touch but as
(3 of 3)
[CW-22407/2017]
reformatory so as to churn out good citizens from bad ones.”
Parole is granted to the convict so that he is able to meet his family members and carry his obligations towards family. Release of convict on parole promotes tranquility, peace, prosperity, happiness and the good will in the society.
The mere assertion of the police that the public peace will be disturbed without placing on record any material for the perusal of the court is not sufficient. It is a mere excuse and cannot be raised in every case by using words that ' public peace will be disturbed ' until the State justify and place on record any substantial material that if petitioner is released on parole, the same will cause disturbance in the society.
In the present case, except, that the police had opined that if petitioner is granted parole, public peace shall stand disturbed, no material has been placed on record.
I find no reason to deny parole to the petitioner.
Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is granted first regular parole for a period of twenty-days from the date of release to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Bharatpur. A further direction is issued to the concerned authority to release the petitioner on first regular parole in consonance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Prisons (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958. The petitioner shall furnish the necessary personal bond and bond by the sureties to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Bharatpur.
(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA)J.
ashok
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order declining parole to the petitioner should be set aside due to lack of substantial material regarding breach of peace.
Whether the State's mere assertion of public disturbance justifies denying parole without placing material on record.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Inderjit Singh vs. State of HaryanaExplained¶18
Inderjit Singh vs. State of Haryana [1996 Vol.3 RCR (Cr.) 845]
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ram Mohan S/o Shri Jaswant Singh
State of Rajasthan
District Parole Advisory Committee
Superintendent, Central Jail Sewar, Bharatpur
KAWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
