Tejpal Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Manoj K. Tiwari, J

This petition has been registered on a letter sent by the petitioner seeking parole for a period of two months for the purpose of repairing his ancestral house which, according to him, is in a dilapidated condition. The said letter has been duly forwarded by Superintendent, District Jail, Dehradun with his letter dated 20.07.2018.

In his letter, petitioner has stated that he is continuously in jail since 2011 and has completed incarceration of 8 years. He has further stated that his house is in dilapidated condition which may fall down any time, and his wife & old parents are not in a position to get it repaired. He has further stated that he had submitted applications to the District Magistrate seeking parole, however, every time, he was denied parole merely on the basis of apprehension that he may jump parole.

Custody Certificate issued by Superintendent, District Jail, Dehradun on 14.07.2018 is on record. A perusal of the said document indicates that the petitioner is in jail since 10.11.2011 and further that petitioner's conduct in jail is excellent.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh & another Vs. State (Delhi Administration), reported in AIR 1978 S.C. 1091, has held as follows:

"...if the behaviour 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..."

Similarly, in the case of Shakuntala Devi Vs. State of Delhi, reported in 1996 (36) DRJ 545, Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held as under:

"(5) In Poonam Lata Vs. M.L. Wadhawan, it has been held by their Lordship that; "RELEASE on parole is a wing of reformative process and is expected to provide opportunity to the prisoner to transform himself into a useful citizen."

IN Inder Singh Vs. State , the Apex Court has devised another humanising strategy, viz, a guarded parole release every year atleast a month, punctuating the total prison term, for maintaining his family ties. A prisoner cannot maintain his family ties by living in a small world of his own cribbed, cabined and confined within the four walls of the prison. In the case of Inder Singh (supra), their lordships directed that:-

".......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 ay not further buildup. After every period of one year, they should be enlarged on parole for two months.......' THEIR lordships further added that "Article 21 of the Constitution in the jurisdiction root for this legal liberalism."

THE decision in Inder Singh's case has a message of compelling force and relevance to the prison pathology. A logical consequence of this decision is that parole has become an integral part of our criminal justice. We may add here that regardless of the crime a man may commit, he still is a human being and has human feelings also. Therefore the nature and length of sentence or the magnitude of the crime committed by the prisoner are not relevant for the purpose of grant of parole.

(6) It has to be borne in mind that the exercise of all administrative power vested in public authority must be informed by both relevance and reason, relevance in relation lo the object which it seeks to serve and reason in regard to the manner in which it at- tempts to do so. Therefore, in construing the question of grant of parole to a prisoner, the Government in the scheme of the prison administration must take a constructive and purpose oriented approach, and exercise its beneficient jurisdiction wisely. In such matters, the representation made by the prisoner must be construed liberally and not technically so as to frustrate or defeat the therapeutic treatment, hospital setting and correctional goals.

(7) It is well settled that Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in administrative action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. The Apex Court has observed in E.P. Royappa VS. State Of T.N. , "from a positive point of view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. Any administrative action that is arbitrary must involve the negation of equality. (A.L. Kalra Vs. P & E Corporation of India Ltd. ). No doubt, the grant of parole is essentially an executive function. If the Court finds that any Governmental action in rejecting the grant of parole to a prisoner has the effect of suffocating the Article 14 or Article 21 of the Constitution, then the court must act, will act to restore the rule of law and respect the residuary fundamental rights of an aggrieved prisoner.

(8) On a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the Delhi Administration was influenced by the nature of the sentence awarded to the petitioner, the magnitude of the crime committed by her and the duration of the period of parole granted to her earlier, in rejecting her prayer for grant of parole. As we said earlier, the nature of the sentence or the magnitude of the crime committed by the prisoner are not relevant for the purpose of grant of parole. It is significant that the affidavit filed by the Deputy Secretary (Home) clearly indicates that the behavior of the petitioner shows responsibility and trustworthiness. It also shows that the petitioner is a "patient of diabetes, hypertension, coronary ailing disease and her blood sugar is 245 mg.% (R)." It is beyond the pale of controversy that last parole was granted to the petitioner some 14 months before. The Delhi Administration has obviously not kept these aspects in view while dealing with the petitioner's prayer for grant of parole. Such indifference on the part of the Delhi Administration can't deter the writ of this Court running into the prison and compelling compliance of the message illumined by the Apex Court in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State (supra).

(9) We are constrained to observe that the operative reasons for the State action in rejecting the petitioner's prayer for grant of parole are not legitimate and relevant but are devoid of human benediction and outside the area of permissible considerations. Consequently, the impugned order can't be allowed to stand."

Similar view was expressed by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Ramesh @ Ajay Vs. State of Haryana & others (C.W.P. No. 8776 of 2018 decided on 24.04.2018).

Vide order dated 27.08.2019, learned State Counsel was asked to get definite instructions regarding the basis for forming an opinion that petitioner may abscond if he is granted parole. Today, learned State Counsel informed the Court that sole basis for such apprehension is that since petitioner has been sentenced for life, therefore, there is likelihood that he may jump parole. Learned State Counsel fairly submits that petitioner is in jail since 10.11.2011.

Admittedly, petitioner is in jail for about 8 years. His prayer for parole made to the District Magistrate had been rejected. Petitioner is praying for parole so that he may reconstruct his dilapidated residential house. According to him, there is no one in the family who may get done the work of reconstruction. According to the certificate given by Superintendent, District Jail, his conduct has been excellent in the jail, therefore, parole cannot be denied to the petitioner merely because he has been sentenced for life. The question of jumping parole can be secured by asking for heavy surety. The stand taken in the order of rejection of parole is totally baseless and the same has been passed without any substance to show as to how the petitioner is likely to abscond.

In such view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. Petitioner shall be released on parole for a period of six weeks from the date of his release, by remaining in police custody, on his executing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two reliable sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned District Magistrate. It is directed that, on expiry of six weeks, the petitioner shall surrender before the Superintendent of the Jail concerned.

Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Superintendent of concerned jail forthwith.