Narayan Ram vs State of Raj. and Others

R.S. Chauhan, J.—Incarcerated in Central Jail Jodhpur, a convicted prisoner, Narayan Ram, sent a letter to this Court which has been treated as a letter petition by this Court. The Petitioner has pleaded that vide order dated 19.04.2012, the District Parole Committee Jodhpur had granted him parole for twenty days. However, it has directed him to furnish two sureties of Rs. 30,000/- each and a personal bond of the same amount. According to him, he comes from an extremely poor family. Due to his poverty, the family cannot procure two sureties for the high amount of Rs. 30,000/-. At best he can furnish a personal bond, but that too not of Rs. 30,000/-. It is only due to his utter poverty that he has never taken the benefit of parole, although he has been incarcerated for the last seven and half years. Therefore, he has prayed that the requirement of furnishing two sureties be dispensed with and the amount of personal bond be reduced.

However, the learned Additional Govt. Advocate claims that the petitioner has completed actual sentence of ten years two months and thirteen days and earned a remission of three years, seven months, and four days. Thus he has completed a total period of incarceration of thirteen years, two months and ten days. But still, he has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner.

Heard the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate.

Although incarceration of a person necessarily implies deprivation of his fundamental rights, but the fundamental rights are not completely obliterated. The twin rights of "life" and "personal liberty" continue to glow even in the dark corners of a prison. Realizing these twin aspects, the Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958 (''the Rules'', for short), were created as a piece of social beneficial legislation for the benefit of the large number of convicted prisoners. Even when the convicted prisoner is serving a "term of imprisonment" or of "life imprisonment", he does have a right of consideration of his case for parole, during the parole period personal liberty is restored for a limited period. Repeatedly, the Hon''ble Supreme Court and this Court have held that parole serves three purposes; firstly, it re-establishes the link between the prisoner and his family; secondly, it permits the prisoner to move freely in the mainstream of society; thirdly, it is a motivational method to encourage the prisoner to reform himself during the period of incarceration. In fact Rule 13 of the Rules clearly states that parole should be used as a means teach good behaviour to the prisoner.

Keeping these views in mind, both Hon''ble Supreme Court and this Court have repeatedly held that the parole should be granted as liberally as possible. While considering the cases, the Advisory Committee should be alive to the constitutional mandate and to the philosophy which underlines the parole Rules.

Under the Rules the convicted prisoners have a right of consideration of being granted the parole in case they where to fulfil the eligibility requirement laid down by the Rules. The right of consideration is a substantive right. It cannot be converted into an illusory one by imposition of onerous condition. The District Parole Committee/Advisory Committee have to keep in mind the stark reality of this country where poverty stalks the land. However, poverty cannot deprive a convicted prisoner of the fundamental right to file the right to life would include the right to associate with one''s family and, if found eligible, to be released on parole. After all, parole is a means to restore the fundamental right of movement and is a means to restore the family ties. Therefore, the District parole Committee/Advisory Committee should not impose the onerous requirement of furnishing of two sureties of a very high amount. They should be sensitive to the economic condition of the convicted prisoner. Therefore, this court modifies the order dated 19.04.2012 qua the petitioner: the condition of furnishing two sureties is reduced to one surety and the amount is reduced from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 25,000/-. This court further reduces the personal bond amount from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 25,000/-. Thus, in case, the petitioner furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and one surety of the same amount to the satisfaction of the Superintendent, Central Jail Jodhpur, then the petitioner, Narayan Ram S/o. Hunuman Ram, by caste Jat, resident of Jatawas, Sarno Ki Dhani, Jhanwar, District Jodhpur shall be released on parole of twenty days. He is directed to maintain peace and tranquility during his furlough, and to report back to the Central Jail, Jodhpur after completion of the twentieth day of his first parole.

The Petition is, hereby, disposed off.