High Court of Himachal Pradesh was dealing with petition seeking parole for 90 days. Petitioner has been convicted for offences under Sections 302 and 323 of the IPC by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Criminal Appeal by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction has been dismissed by this Court.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner on 14.09.2020 applied for parole to meet his family members consisting of his wife and four minor children. The application was rejected by the Director General Prison Correctional Services Officer on 10.12.2020. The petitioner subsequently moved another application for parole on 24.05.2021, which was also rejected on the basis of non-recommendation from the concerned District Magistrate. Aggrieved against the rejection of his applications for grant of parole, the petitioner has preferred the present petition praying that the rejection of his applications are in violation of his legal rights granted under the Constitution as well as the Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968 and Rules 1969 framed thereunder.
Respondent’s Contention:
Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that in accordance with provisions of the Act & Rules framed thereunder, the parole applications of the prisoners are to be forwarded to the District Magistrate of the concerned district for his recommendation. The District Magistrate after consulting the Superintending of Police and on making such inquiries as deemed fit is to make his recommendation with regard to the release of the convict. It was further submitted that in case the District Magistrate on inquiry is satisfied that the release of the convict is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order then the convict is not entitled to be released as per the provisions of Section 6 of the Act.
HC’s Observations And Held:
After hearing both the sides Court stated that as per the report sent by the Senior Superintendent of Police to the District Probation Officer there are total 05 members in the family of the petitioner including his wife aged and four minor children. As per the report, petitioner has a house in village and no other plot/land. The sole reason given in the report for rejecting petitioner’s application for release on parole is that his release will send wrong message to the society. It is purely on the basis of the report that the District Magistrate has turned down petitioner’s application. The reply to the writ petition also states that the petitioner belongs to the State of Uttar Pradesh and there is likelihood of his absconding during parole.
HC relied upon the case of Asfaq Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, where the apex Court considered various precedents in timeline with respect to parole/remission/premature release-furlough and emphasized on reformation theory for granting opportunity to the convict to reform himself. It was observed that “a convict, must remain in jail for the period of sentence or for rest of his life in case he is a life convict. It is in this context that his release from jail for a short period has to be considered as an opportunity afforded to him not only to solve his personal and family problems, but also to maintain his links with society. Convicts must also breathe fresh air for at least some time, provided they maintain good conduct consistently during incarceration and show a tendency to reform.”
HC also relied upon the case of Shor Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh where the SC while considering Section 2 of the United Provinces Prisoners Release on Probation Act 1938, held that “merely repeating the fact that the crime is heinous and that release of such a person would send a negative message against the justice system in the society are factors de hors Section 2 of the Act.”
Court after considering above judgements stated that the ground taken by the respondents that petitioner’s release on parole would send negative message to the society cannot be countenanced.
HC allowed the petition.
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Chief Justice & Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Case Title: Bhura Khan v. State Of Himachal Pradesh
Case Details: CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 7547 OF 2021
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
