SUBASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUBHASH has filed this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking grant of parole under Section 3(1)(d) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners Temporary Release Act of 1988. Parole has been sought to conduct repairs of his house and the period for which parole is sought is four weeks. Petitioner's case had been initiated by the Authorities on November 20, 2003. According to the petitioner, he is permanent resident of Pabra where he owns a house. The condition of the house is very bad and there are minor children at home. There is no other person present at home to repair the house. Petitioner's father is also in jail. The above facts have been certified as correct by the Gram Panchayat.

(2.) NOTICE of motion was issued to the State and reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents by Jagjit Singh, Superintendent Central Jail, Hisar who has stated that the District Magistrate, Hisar did not recommend parole on the ground that the convict was undergoing imprisonment in a case of social evil. Reliance was placed on the report of the District Magistrate, Hisar Annexures R/T-I. This report was accepted by the Director General of Prisons Haryana who rejected the request for parole on March 1, 2004 vide orders annexures R/T-II.

(3.) IT is a pity that crime and punishment in our country are cloaked in myth and mis-information and the criminal justice policy is quite vague and imprecise. The convict must return to civil society after he has completed his term of imprisonment. Denial of parole amounts to denial of an opportunity to live, even for a brief period of 4 weeks, in the village to which the prisoner must return. If the convict is given an opportunity to live with his children for four weeks his ultimate rehabilitation would become easy. It can never be the intention of the criminal justice system or the sentencing policy to make it difficult for a convict to settle down peacefully in a non-violent and purposeful way. Therefore, parole should be the rule. An exception can only be made in a case where the convict is a violent person who has not shown any remorse or reform and who may commit serious crime if released on parole. In the present case the convict is undergoing imprisonment for dowry death and has children at home who lost their mother and whose father is undergoing sentence, compassion should be the rule.