Gopal vs State of Rajasthan

Gopal, a convicted prisoner at Central Jail, Jaipur has filed this petition through his next friend, Babulal Jat for being released on a parole of seven days under Rule 18 of the Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958 (''The Parole Rules'' for short).

Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 26.8.2004, the petitioner along with other co-accused persons was involved in a case for offences under Sections 380, 460 and 302/34 IPC. Subsequently, he was convicted for the said offence by judgment dated 20.4.2006. For offence under Section 302/34, he was sentenced to life imprisonment. The petitioner has filed an appeal before this court, namely D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 681/2006 which is still pending.

So far, the petitioner has served nine years and six months. Along with remission, he has served eleven years, five months. During this period of incarceration, the petitioner was granted the benefit of first regular parole of twenty days. He was equally granted the benefit of second parole of thirty days from 31.12.2010 till 29.1.2011. However, the petitioner failed to return to the Central Jail, Jaipur after the expiry of thirty days. In fact, he was arrested on 14.4.2011 and returned to Jail. Since the petitioner had absconded for three months, he lost his right to further regular parole under Rule 9 of the Parole Rules. Instead, now his case was covered under Rule 18 of the Parole Rules. Therefore, he applied for a parole of seven days under Rule 18 of the Parole Rules. However, the Advisory Committee has rejected his case by order dated 20.10.2014. Hence, this petition before this court.

Mr. Vishram Prajapat, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that although Rule 18 of the Parole Rules deals with "punishment for breach of conditions of parole", but it bestows the right of consideration upon the convicted prisoners who are being released on parole for seven days at the first instance, fifteen days at the second instance and thirty days thereafter.

Secondly, in order to be eligible for being released under Rule 18 of the Parole Rules, the Superintendent of Jail has to be fully satisfied that the convicted prisoner would not breach the condition of parole in future. In the present case, although the Superintendent of Jail has given a favourable report, still the Advisory Committee has rejected petitioner''s case ostensibly on the ground that the Superintendent of Police and the Officer of the Social Welfare Department have not recommended his release. However, the reports of the Superintendent of Police and of the Social Welfare Officer are not the key factor. What is essential is the report of the Superintendent of Jail. Therefore, the petitioner''s case has been rejected on irrelevant grounds. Thus, it shows the non-application of mind by the Advisory Committee.

On the other hand, Mr. N.S. Dhakar, the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, has contended that the petitioner''s behavior in the Jail has also been unsatisfactory. For, the petitioner had misbehaved with one Narendra Singh Panwar for which the petitioner was punished with a forfeiture of Jail remission of five days. Therefore, the petitioner has not reformed himself to the extent that he would peacefully follow the conditions of the parole. Hence, the Advisory Committee has rightly rejected his case. Thus, the learned Govt. Advocate has supported the order dated 20.10.2014 qua the petitioner.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.

Rule-9 of the Parole Rules is as under:--

"9. Parole Period. - A prisoner, who has completed with remission, if any, [one fourth] of his sentence and subject to good conduct in the Jail, may be released on Ist parole for 20 days including days of journey to home and back, and for 30 days on 2nd parole provided his behaviour has been good during Ist parole and for 40 days on third parole provided his behaviour has been good during the second parole. If during the third parole also the prisoner has behaved well and his character has been exceedingly well and if the prisoner''s conduct has been such that he is not he is not likely to replace into crime, his case may be recommended to the Government through the State Committee for permanent release on parole on such conditions as deemed fit by the Superintendent Jail and the District Magistrate concerned; the Chief condition among them being that if the prisoner while on parole commits any offence or abets, directly or indirectly, commission of any offence, he has to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence in addition to any sentence imposed upon him by reason of such an offence. In case the permanent release on parole is rejected, the prisoner will be eligible for release on parole for 40 days every year subject to the same conditions for the remaining period of his sentence;

Provided that cases of prisoners who have been sentenced to imprisonment for life, for an offence for which death penalty is one of the punishments provided by law or who have been sentenced to death but this sentence has been commuted under section 433 of Code of Criminal Procedure into one of life imprisonment shall not be placed before the State Committee for permanent release on parole unless he has served 14 years of imprisonment excluding remission, but including the period of detention passed during enquiry, investigation or trial. Such prisoners may be released on parole for 40 days every year for the remaining period of their sentence subject to the conditions stated above."

The said provision deals with the grant of regular parole to a convicted prisoners. According to the said rule, a prisoner is entitled to be released on four regular paroles each varying in their duration of furlough. Having completed four regular paroles peacefully, the prisoner would be entitled to be released on a permanent parole. However, Rule 13 of the Rules clearly stipulates that parole cannot be had as of right, but is a privilege given by the State to those convicted prisoners who reform themselves. In fact, parole system is part of reformative theory of punishment. And parole is given to the convicted prisoners in order to motivate them to improve their behavior and conduct during their incarceration in the prison.

In case a prisoner violates the condition of parole, Rule 18 of the Parole Rules comes into force. Rule 18 of the Parole Rules is as under:--

"18. Punishment for breach of conditions of Parole.- The following punishments may be awarded to the prisoners for over staying their sanctioned parole period or for breach of any other conditions laid down namely:--

(i) He should not be let off an parole in future unless the Superintendent of Jail is fully satisfied that he will not commit any breach of condition in future.

(ii) In case the prisoner is released on the recommendation of the Superintendent of Jail concerned after the breach of condition, the period release of parole would be 7 days excluding days of journey to home and back. The next parole will be 15 days (Provided he has behaved himself well during the period) and 30 days in the fourth parole.

(iii) If the prisoner again over-stays or commits any breach of the terms of the parole, he shall be permanently debarred from the concession of release on parole."

According to this provision, since a convicted prisoner has breached the condition of the parole, he is visited with some punishment. Instead of being eligible for regular parole under Rule 9 of the Parole Rules, his parole period is curtailed to merely seven days, fifteen days, or thirty days. Thus, the curtailing of the period is seen as a punishment being inflicted upon the convicted prisoner for having violated the condition of parole.

Although Rule 18 of the Parole Rules prescribes that the satisfaction of the Superintendent of Jail is paramount, it does not mean that the report of the Superintendent of Police and the report of the Social Welfare Officer, or the report of the District Magistrate of the concerned district can be ignored. The report of the Superintendent of the Jail is important as it is he who observes changes in the personality of the convicted prisoner. But simultaneously, the Advisory Committee is justified in taking into account other reports placed before it, namely the report of the District Magistrate of the concerned district, the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district, and the Social Welfare Officer.

In the present case, not only the Superintendent of Police, not only the Social Welfare Officer, but even the Jail Superintendent has not recommended the case of the petitioner for being released under Rule 18 of the Parole Rules. Most importantly, since the petitioner has been punished with reduction of Jail remission by five days, obviously he has yet to improve his conduct in the Jail. A convicted prisoner who fails to reform himself cannot hope to be given a privilege of parole under the Parole Rules. Therefore, the Advisory Committee was justified in rejecting the petitioner''s case by order dated 20.10.2014.

For the reasons stated above, this court does not find any merit in this writ petition. Therefore, it is hereby, dismissed.