Rai Singh vs State of Haryana and Another

P.K. Jain, J.—This petition has been filed u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. for issuing a direction to the respondents to release the petitioner on personal bond or on furnishing necessary bond to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal.

The facts in brief are that the petitioner who is a convict u/s 302, Indian Penal Code, and is undergoing sentence in Central Jail, Ambala had applied for parole for the repair of his damaged house by filing Cr. Misc. No. 15000-M of 1994. The request was opposed by the State on the ground that the District Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar (U.P.) did not recommend the release of the petitioner. It was noticed that earlier thereto the petitioner was allowed six weeks'' parole in Crl. Misc. No. 13408-M of 1994 by order dated March 1,1994 and he did not misconduct during the said period. Accordingly a Bench of this Court by order dated 8-12-1994 accepted the petition and issued a direction to the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner to release on parole ignoring the recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner, Muzaffar Nagar (U.P.) and to take a decision within 2 months from the date a copy of the order was supplied, failing which the petitioner was to be released on parole to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Ambala for the said period.

In view of the orders dated 8-12-1994 passed by this Court the petitioner approached the District Magistrate, Ambala, for his release on parole as directed by this Court but the District Magistrate, Ambala demanded two sureties of Rs. 5,00,000/- each for the release of the petitioner on parole. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has filed the present petition with a prayer that he may be released on parole on his personal bond or may be allowed to be released on furnishing necessary bond to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal.

Notice of motion was issued to the State. In reply the factual position as mentioned in the petition has not been denied: It has been stated that the petitioner could not be released on parole since he was unable to furnish surety bonds to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Ambala, and as such the present petition is liable to be rejected.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the provisions contained in the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 and the Rules framed by the State of Punjab and adopted by the State of Haryana under the said Act. Rule 3, which is relevant for our purposes, reads as under:-

(3) If after making such enquiry as it may deem fit, the Releasing Authority is satisfied that the prisoner is entitled to be released under the Act, the Releasing Authority may issue to the Superintendent of Jail through the Inspector-General a duly signed and sealed warrant in Form Bordering the temporary release of the prisoner, specifying therein (i) period of release (ii) the place or places which the prisoner is allowed to visit during the period of such temporary release, and the amount for which the security bond and the surety bond shall be furnished by the prisoner in Forms C and D respectively :-

Provided that the amount of the security bond and the surety bond shall not exceed twenty thousand rupees in each case.

From a bare perusal of the Rule reproduced above it is evident that the amount of the security bond/surety bond shall not exceed twenty-thousand rupees in each case.

In the present case the District Magistrate, Ambala, had directed the petitioner to furnish two sureties in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- each for releasing him on parole. This direction is directly in contravention of the statutory rule reproduced above and virtually amounts to a denial of a right permissible under law and granted by this Court to the petitioner. Where power is conferred to achieve a purpose, that power must be exercised reasonably and in good faith to effectuate the purpose. Where power is exercised for irrelevant consideration or reasons, it is unquestionably a colourable exercise of power and the same stands vitiated. Exercise of such power by an executive or quasi-judicial authority is not protected from the scrutiny by the Courts.

I am constrained to observe that a convict or a prisoner is not stripped of his fundamental or other legal rights, save those which are inconsistent with his incarceration. By granting parole or furlough, the prisoner is released from the jail for a short time. It is granted for various reasons, such as, to enable the prisoner to return to the outside world, to enable continuity with his family life, and to deal with family matters, etc. Grant of parole or furlough is a part of penal and prison reform. The obvious objects are :-

(i) to enable the inmate to maintain continuity with his family life and deal with family matters.

(ii) to save the inmate from the evil effects of continuous prison life.

(iii) to enable the inmate to maintain constructive hope and active interests in life.

These are the avowed objects for which statutory provisions have been made for grant of parole or furlough to a prisoner. If the Executive Authorities impose unreasonable conditions which are beyond the means of the prisoner, the very purpose or object of the statute making a provision for parole or furlough would be frustrated and become a dead letter. The rules are enacted in exercise of the statutory powers for the due implementation of various provisions contained in the main statute and are meant to be complied with instead of defying the same.

For the reasons mentioned above, this petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to release the petitioner on parole for a period of two months as already granted to him in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 15000-M of 1994 on usual terms to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Ambala who shall keep in view the provisions of Rule 3 reproduced and discussed above while asking the petitioner to furnish security/surety bonds.