HANUMAN RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A letter has been received from Hanuman Ram, a convicted prisoner serving his sentence at Central Jail, Jodhpur. The said letter has been treated as a letter petition by this Court. Vide order dated 17.2.2012, this Court had appointed Mr. Firoz Khan, as amicus curiae to argue this case on behalf of the petitioner.

(2.) Mr. Firoz Khan, has contended that Hanuman Ram was convicted for offence under Section 376 IPC and was sentenced to ten years of R.I. As on 22.2.2012, out of sentence of ten years, he has already completed three years, six months, and seven days. During this period, he was granted a first parole for twenty days. On completion of his parole period,2 he had peacefully returned to the Central Jail. Since, he was eligible for second parole of thirty days, he had applied for the same. Vide order dated 19.9.2011, he was granted a parole of thirty days provided he furnished two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each and a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/-. However, according to the petitioner, there is no one in the family who can give surety. Moreover, the family is extremely poor. Therefore, they cannot produce any sureties for the large sum of Rs. 25,000/-. Hence, the petitioner has prayed that the personal bond should be taken and he should be granted benefit of second parole.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has contended that it is imperative that sureties be provided in accordance with the order dated 19.9.2011. Till the sureties are provided Hanuman Ram cannot be released on parole. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Poverty cannot be permitted to be an obstacle for granting a limited liberty to a convicted prisoner. According to the petitioner, the family is financially crippled and is not in a position to produce two sureties for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each. Moreover, even Hanuman Ram may not be in a position to give a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/-. But, merely because the3 sureties and personal bond of such a large amount cannot be given, it cannot be a ground for depriving him of his liberty during the parole period.