Tika Ram vs State

G.S. Sistani, J.

WP(Crl.) No. 57/2009.

The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to the respondent to release the petitioner for a period of three months on parole to enable him to make arrangements for the admission of his child daughter; to arrange for the medical treatment of his 80 years old father; and, to re-establish long severed ties with his family members and society. Notice in this petition was issued. Verification has been carried out and an additional status report has been handed over in Court today. As per the status report, the father and daughter of the petitioner are residing along with Mahender Singh, one of the two brothers of the petitioner. The father of the petitioner is about 79 years of age and the daughter is stated to be seven years of age. As per the status report, the antecedents of convict and his family have been verified and nothing adverse has been found against them.

The petitioner was convicted under Sections 302/307/498-A/34, IPC, and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 7,000/ -. The petitioner has served more than six years of his conviction.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In the case of Shailesh Jasvantbhai and Another Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, , the Apex Court while discussing the sentencing policy, observed:

The law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting claims and demands. Security of persons and property of the people is an essential function of the State. It could be achieved through instrumentality of criminal law. Undoubtedly, there is a cross-cultural conflict where living law must find answer to the new challenges and the courts are required to mould the sentencing system to meet the challenges. The contagion of lawlessness would undermine social order and lay it in ruins. Protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law which must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence. Therefore, law as a cornerstone of the edifice of "order" should meet the challenges confronting the society. Friedman in his Law in Changing Society stated that: "State of criminal law continues to be" as it should be "a decisive reflection of social consciousness of society." Therefore, in operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft modulation, sentencing process be stern where it should be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be.

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

In Poonam Lata Vs. M.L. Wadhawan and Others, this Court was considering the nature and scope of parole in a case of preventive detention. It said: (SCC p. 354; para 8)

"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. 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; Jowitt''s 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 Sir 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. Carney.) 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 principles stated by the Apex Court to the facts and circumstances of this case and taking into consideration the additional status report filed in the Court today, I find this is a fit case for grant of parole. The antecedents of the petitioner have been verified, which show that he is not a habitual offender. The petitioner needs to arrange for the school admission of his daughter as well as for making financial arrangements for the medical treatment of his ailing father. Accordingly, petitioner is ordered to be released on parole for a period of one (01) 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 Trial Court. With these directions, petition stands disposed of.