PRAKASH VERMA Vs. STATE OF RAJ. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A letter has been received from Prakash Verma, which has been treated as a letter petition by this Court. The petitioner has sought the first parole for twenty days. Vide order dated 4.1.2012, this Court had appointed Mr. K.R. Bhati, as amicus curiae, to argue the case on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. K.R. Bhati, submits that the petitioner has completed nine years of his sentence out of a total sentence of ten years. In this entire period, he has not applied for parole. Therefore, he is eligible for grant of first parole. However, vide order dated 31.5.2011, the District Parole Committee has dismissed the petitioner's case. Secondly, that the reasons given by the Committee are that they have received an adverse report both from the Superintendent of Police (Rural), Jaipur, and Superintendent of Central Jail, Jodhpur. According to the report of the Superintendent of Central Jail, Jodhpur, the petitioner is refusing to work in the jail factory. Therefore, his conduct within the jail is unsatisfactory. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that only convicted prisoners of offence under Section 302 IPC are required to work in the jail factory. Therefore, the report of the Superintendent Central Jail, is clearly untenable. Thus, he has prayed that the petitioner should be released on his first parole.

(2.) ON the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the petitioner has been convicted for offences under Sections 392, 397 IPC. Secondly, all the convicted prisoners, who have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment, are required to work in the factory. Therefore, the work in the factory is not restricted to only those convicted prisoners who have been convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC. Thirdly, according to the Superintendent of Central Jail, the petitioner is refusing to work in the jail factory. Therefore, he is violating the discipline, which needs to be maintained in the jail. Moreover, he is setting a wrong example model for the other convicted prisoners to follow. Fourthly, according to the Superintendent of Police, in case, the petitioner were released on parole, there is a likelihood of his reverting to criminal way of life. Hence, the learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the grant of parole by this Court.

(3.) IN the present case, according to the Superintendent of Central Jail, Jodhpur, the petitioner has refused to work in the jail factory. It is a misplaced argument to claim that only convicted prisoners for offence under Section 302 IPC are required to work in the jail factory. It is common knowledge that all convicted prisoners who have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment are required to work either in the jail factory, or to perform certain hard labour. Therefore, the petitioner is not justified in claiming that he is not required to work in the jail factory. Jail Factory is a means to teach skills to the convicted prisoners so that once they are released from the jail, they can earn a livelihood for themselves. Therefore, it is imperative for the petitioner to report to the jail factory, and to discharge his function in the jail factory satisfactorily. Since, the petitioner is violating the jail discipline, naturally he has not reformed himself to the extent that he can be brought back to the mainstream of the society. Hence, the District Parole Committee was certainly justified in rejecting the first parole. Therefore, the petition is devoid any merit, it is, hereby, dismissed.