Rehmat Ali vs State

G.S. Sistani, J.—This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 (hereinafter referred to as, ""Cr.P.C."") for release of the petitioner on parole for a period of four (4) months in the case FIR No.355/1999,

under Sections 20/61/85 NDPS Act, P.S.Ashok Vihar, Delhi. The petitioner was sentenced to ten (10) years of Rigorous Imprisonment

(hereinafter referred to as, ""RI""). Learned counsel for the State submits that in addition to sentence the petitioner was also directed to pay a fine of

Rs. 1.0 lakh, which has not been deposited by him. It is further submitted that as per the order of conviction, in case of default of the payment of

fine, petitioner has to serve Simple Imprisonment for a further period of two (2) years.

It is the case of the petitioner that he seeks parole on the ground that he needs to repair his damaged house which has become unsafe for

habitation. And which is more problematic in view of the fact that his wife is staying in the matrimonial home, alone. Learned counsel for the

petitioner (provided by the Delhi Legal Services Authority) submits that the petitioner had approached and filed an application dated 17.07.2008,

to the respondent (Government of NCT of Delhi) for grant of parole for a period of four months which however has not been replied till date by

the respondent though more than five (5) months have lapsed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fact that the respondent did not

reply to the petitioner''s application is patently unconstitutional and against the tenets of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

It is stated that the petitioner has thrice availed the opportunity of parole without violating any of the prescribed conditions and has always

surrendered to the jail authorities in due course of time. In order to canvass his argument for grant of parole, learned counsel places reliance upon

the case of Inder Singh and Another Vs. The State (Delhi Administration), , relevant portion of which reads as under:

..... if the behavior of these two prisoners shows responsibility and trustworthiness, liberal though cautious, parole will be allowed to them so that

their family ties may be maintained and inner tensions may not further build up. After every period of one year, they should be enlarged on parole

for two months

Learned counsel for the petitioner prays before this Court for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to release

the petitioner on parole for a period of four months on the ground of"" an urgent need to repair his damaged house and re-establish family ties.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully analysed the material on record. In the case of Sunil Fulchand Shah Vs. Union of India

and Others, , wherein it was held:

""Parole"", however, has a different connotation than bail even though the substantial legal effect of both bail and parole may be the release of a

person from detention or custody. The dictionary meaning of ""parole"" is:

The Concise Oxford Dictionary (New Edition)

The release of a prisoner temporarily for a special purpose or completely before the expiry of a sentence, on the promise of good behavior ;such a

promise; a word of honour.

Black''s Law Dictionary (6th Edition)

Release from jail, prison or other confinement after actually serving part of sentence; Conditional release from imprisonment which entitles parolee

to serve remainder of his term outside confines of an institution, if he satisfactorily complies with all terms and conditions provided in parole order.

According to The Law Lexicon 1, ""parole"" has been defined as:

A parole is a form of conditional pardon, by which the convict is released before the expiration of his term, to remain subject, during the remainder

thereof, to supervision by the public authority and to return to imprisonment on violation of the condition of the parole.

Furthermore in the case of State of Haryana and Others Vs. Mohinder Singh, the Apex Court observed as under:

In Poonam Lata v. M.L. Wadhawan this Court was considering the nature and scope of parole in a case of preventive detention. It said:

8.....The grant of parole is essentially an executive function and instances of release of detenus on parole were literally unknown until this Court and

some of the High Courts in India in recent years made orders of release on parole on humanitarian considerations. Historically ""parole"" is a concept

known to military law and denotes release of a prisoner of war on promise to return. Parole has become an integral part of the English and

American systems of criminal justice intertwined with the evolution of changing attitudes of the society towards crime and criminals. As a

consequence of the introduction of parole into the penal system, all fixed-term sentences of imprisonment of above 18 months are subject to

release on licence, that is, parole after a third of the period of sentence has been served. In those countries, parole is taken as an act of grace and

not as a matter of right and the convict prisoner may be released on condition that he abides by the promise. It is a provisional release from

confinement but is deemed to be a part of the imprisonment. Release on parole is a wing of the reformative process and is expected to provide

opportunity to the prisoner to transform himself into a useful citizen. Parole is thus a grant of partial liberty or lessening of restrictions to a convict

prisoner, but release on parole does not change the status of the prisoner, (emphasis supplied.)

Rules are framed providing supervision by parole authorities of the convicts released on parole and in case of failure to perform the promise, the

convict released on parole is directed to surrender to custody. (See The Oxford Companion to Law, edited by Walker, 1980 Edn., p.""931;

Black""s Law Dictionary, 5th Edn., p."" 1006; Jowitts Dictionary of English Law, 2nd Edn., Vol.2, p."" 1320; Kenny""s Outlines of Criminal Law,

17th Edn., pp."" 574-76; The English Sentencing System by Sit Rupert Cross at pp."" 31-34, 87 et. seq.; American Jurisprudence, 2nd Edn.,

Vol.59, pp.53-61; Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol.67; Probation and Parole, Legal and Social Dimensions by Louis P.Camey.) It follows from these

authorities that parole is the release of a very long-term prisoner from a penal or correctional institution after he has served a part of his sentence

under the continuous custody of the State and under conditions that permit his incarceration in the event of misbehaviour.

Applying the aforestated principles to the facts of this case, the petitioner herein was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period

often years and out of this period, the petitioner has already undergone sentence for nine years and seven months approximately. According to the

nominal roll of the petitioner, there have been no reports of any misconduct against the petitioner while he was earlier enlarged on parole/bail. His

conduct in the jail has also been satisfactory and there are no cases pending against him. In the facts and circumstances of this case and taking into

consideration the fact that in addition to repairing his damaged house, the petitioner wants to resume his family ties with his wife, the petitioner is

granted parole for a period of one (1) month from the date of his release on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with two

sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri, U.P. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the

authorities after completion of the above said period.

With these directions, the petition stands disposed of.