PARAS RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CONFINED within the stone walls of the Central Jail, Bharatpur, having spent six years, nine months and twenty eight days in captivity, the petitioner had hoped that he will be granted first regular parole under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958 (henceforth to be referred to as 'the Rules'). However, the District Parole Advisory Committee in its meeting held on 2.3.2007 rejected the case of the petitioner ostensibly on the ground that the Superintendent of Police had submitted an adverse report against the petitioner. Hence this petition before us.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that vide judgment dated 16.9.03 the petitioner was convicted for offences under Section 302/34 IPC and was sentenced to life imprisonment by the Special Judge (SC/ST Cases), Sawai Madhopur. As on 13.4.07 the petitioner has spent 6 years 9 months and 28 days including the jail and the State remission earned by him. Since the petitioner's conduct was good in the jail during his period of incarceration, since he had completed one -fourth of his sentence, he was eligible for the first regular parole under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958. Therefore, he had applied for the same. However, vide order dated 2.3.07 the Advisory Committee has rejected the petitioner's case.

(3.) PAROLE is an essential ingredient of the reformative theory of punishment. The aim and object of incarcerating the convicted person is not just to punish him, but more importantly to reform him during the period of imprisonment. In order to teach good behavior to convicted prisoners, parole system was introduced as far back as in 1958. By denying parole to en eligible convicted prisoner, the prisoner is not only demoralized, but also demotivated from reforming himself. Therefore, the denial of parole has an adverse impact on the psychology and behavioral pattern of the prisoners. Hence the parole should not be denied in mechanical and callous manner. Repeatedly, both the Hon'ble Supreme court and this Court have encouraged a liberal grant of parole to the prisoners. The grant of parole has served three important purposes; firstly it is an incentive to a prisoner to reform himself, secondly it permits the family ties to be maintained during the long period of imprisonment; thirdly, it slowly brings the convicted prisoner back into the mainstream of society. Keeping these three aims in mind, the Jail Administration should liberally grant parole.