Bhanu Ram vs State of Haryana and, anr.

G.S. Chahal, J.

Bhanu Ram, who is a life convict, has moved this criminal miscellaneous under section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of agricultural parole.

The petitioner was convicted on 511981 and sentenced to life imprisonment. He claims that he has maintained good and satisfactory conduct inside the jail and earned remissions. He has his wife and minor child. He owns 21/2 acres of and in village Chochra. His house is also in a dilaidated condition and he has to attend to the agricultural work, as also repairs to his house.

In the return filed, it was pleaded that as per report of the local authorities, the petitioner had murdered his real brother due to family distribution of property and the wife of the deceased has given in writing that if the petitioner is released on parole, there would be danger to the life of the children of the deceased. On account of this report, the parole cast of the petitioner was rejected. The petitioner had committed three serious jail offences during the period of his confinement. For all these reasons, he is not entitled to the concession of parole.

Concession of parole cannot be denied to the petitioner on the basis that the wife of his deceased brother has shown certain apprehensions. In fact, in no case the relatives of the deceased would agree to any concession being granted to the convict. Provision to release on parole has been added so as to enable a convict to socialise with his relatives and friends. When he comes out of the jail after spending the term of his sentence, he should be a better citizen than the man he was sent in. The aim of a long term of imposionment is to reform a prisoner, besides, being deterrent to him as well as others. The aim is, however, not to make him more hardened criminal, more brutal, cunning and dangerous to the society. This aim can be achieved by releasing him at intervals to join the society. Unless there is risk to the security of the State or public order such a release is not to be refused. Sufficient security can always be demanded from the convict to ensure that he does not cause any breach of peace.

Though the respondents took the plea that the petitioner had committed jail offences, but it was not shown that the same were offences of violence. In the absence of such material, it cannot be concluded that he will commit acts of jail during parole period. In this situation, the parole cannot be refused on the basis of petitioner''s lapses inside jail.

I hereby allow the criminal miscellaneous, and direct that the petitioner be released on parole for four weeks, on his furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Karnal

Misc allowed.