Himachal Pradesh High Court

Roshan Lal vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others on 26 February, 2021

Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Ajay Mohan Goel, Anoop Chitkara, Jyotsna Rewal Dua

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

                                               CWP No. 6441 of 2020
                                  Decided on: 26th February, 2021
    ________________________________________________________




                                                                                   .
    Roshan Lal                                      ....Petitioner





                                       Versus
    State of Himachal Pradesh & others              ...Respondents





    ________________________________________________________
    Coram

    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
    The Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.

     Whether approved for reporting? NO.



    1

    ________________________________________________________
    For the petitioner:        Ms. Sheetal Vyas, Advocate.

    For the respondents:                   Mr. Ashok Sharma, A.G. with Mr. Vikas

                                           Rathore, Mr. Vinod Thakur, Mr. Shiv Pal
                                           Manhans, Addl. A.Gs., Mr. Bhupinder
                                           Thakur and Mr. Yudhvir Singh Thakur,
                                           Dy. A.Gs., for the respondents.



    Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (oral)

The request made by the petitioner for releasing him

on parole has been turned down by the respondents, constraining

him to file the instant petition for the grant of following

substantive relief:-

"i). Issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 2 to grant parole to the petitioner in a time bound manner, as per law laid down therefor;

2. The only ground for rejecting the request of the

petitioner for releasing him parole is that he has been convicted

for offences i.e. under Sections 302, 211 & 34 of the Indian Penal

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

Code and sentenced to life imprisonment and presently

undergoing the imprisonment at Model Central Jail Nahan and the

complainant of the case namely Krishan Dev son of Sh. Dhayan

Singh r/o, Ward No. 3, Mawakoholan, Tehsil Ghanari, District Una

has raised objection qua his release on parole and during re-

examination of the above parole case, it has found that there

were three persons involved in the aforesaid case and out of

three, one person has absconded while availing the parole and

still at large.

3. Now the moot question is whether the request for

grant of parole can be rejected only on the ground that the

petitioner has been convicted for a serious and heinous offence

and that the complainant has raised objection qua parole of the

petitioner.

4. It is more than settled that the grant of remission or

parole is not a right vested with the prisoner. It is a privilege

available to the prisoner on fulfilling certain conditions. This is a

discretionary power which has to be exercised by the authorities

conferred with such powers under the relevant rules/regulations.

The Court cannot exercise these powers, though once the powers

are exercised, the Court may hold that the exercise of powers is

not in accordance with rules.

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered in detail

the nature, object, purpose and parameters for grant of parole

subject to which parole can be granted in Asfaq versus State of

Rajasthan and others, (2017) 15 SCC 55, wherein it was observed

as under:

"14. Furlough, on the other hand, is a brief release from the prison. It is conditional and is given in case of long

.

term imprisonment. The period of sentence spent on

furlough by the prisoners need not be undergone by him as is done in the case of parole. Furlough is granted as a

good conduct remission.

15. A convict, literally speaking, 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 too must breathe fresh air for at least some time

provided they maintain good conduct consistently during incarceration and show a tendency to reform themselves and become good citizens. Thus, redemption and rehabilitation of such prisoners for good of societies must

receive due weightage while they are undergoing sentence of imprisonment.

16. This Court, through various pronouncements, has laid down the differences between parole and furlough, few of

which are as under:

(i) Both parole and furlough are conditional release.

(ii) Parole can be granted in case of short term imprisonment whereas in furlough it is granted in case of long term imprisonment.

(iii) Duration of parole extends to one month whereas in the case of furlough it extends to fourteen days maximum.

(iv) Parole is granted by Divisional Commissioner and furlough is granted by the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons.

(v) For parole, specific reason is required, whereas

furlough is meant for breaking the monotony of imprisonment.

(vi) The term of imprisonment is not included in the computation of the term of parole, whereas it is vice versa in furlough.

.

(vii) Parole can be granted number of times

whereas there is limitation in the case of furlough.

(viii) Since furlough is not granted for any particular

reason, it can be denied in the interest of the society. {See State of Maharashtra and Another v. Suresh Pandurang Darvakar (2006) 4 SCC 776; and State of Haryana and Others v. Mohinder Singh,

(2000) 3 SCC 394.

17. From the aforesaid discussion, it follows that amongst the various grounds on which parole can be granted, the

most important ground, which stands out, is that a

prisoner should be allowed to maintain family and social ties. For this purpose, he has to come out for some time so that he is able to maintain his family and social contact. This reason finds justification in one of the

objectives behind sentence and punishment, namely, reformation of the convict. The theory of criminology, which is largely accepted, underlines that the main

objectives which a State intends to achieve by punishing

the culprit are: deterrence, prevention, retribution and reformation. When we recognise reformation as one of the objectives, it provides justification for letting of even the

life convicts for short periods, on parole, in order to afford opportunities to such convicts not only to solve their personal and family problems but also to maintain their links with the society. Another objective which this theory underlines is that even such convicts have right to breathe fresh air, al beit for periods. These gestures on the part of the State, along with other measures, go a long way for redemption and rehabilitation of such prisoners. They are ultimately aimed for the good of the society and, therefore, are in public interest.

18. The provisions of parole and furlough, thus, provide for a humanistic approach towards those lodged in jails. Main purpose of such provisions is to afford to them an opportunity to solve their personal and family problems

and to enable them to maintain their links with society.

Even citizens of this country have a vested interest in preparing offenders for successful re-entry into society. Those who leave prison without strong networks of

support, without employment prospects, without a fundamental knowledge of the communities to which they will return, and without resources, stand a significantly higher chance of failure. When offenders revert to criminal

activity upon release, they frequently do so because they lack hope of merging into society as accepted citizens. Furloughs or parole can help prepare offenders for

success.

19. Having noted the aforesaid public purpose in granting parole or furlough, ingrained in the reformation theory of sentencing, other competing public interest has also to

be kept in mind while deciding as to whether in a particular case parole or furlough is to be granted or not. This public interest also demands that those who are

habitual offenders and may have the tendency to commit the crime again after their release on parole or have the

tendency to become threat to the law and order of the society, should not be released on parole. This aspect

takes care of other objectives of sentencing, namely, deterrence and prevention. This side of the coin is the experience that great number of crimes are committed by the offenders who have been put back in the street after conviction. Therefore, while deciding as to whether a particular prisoner deserves to be released on parole or not, the aforesaid aspects have also to be kept in mind. To put it tersely, the authorities are supposed to address the question as to whether the convict is such a person who has the tendency to commit such a crime or he is showing tendency to reform himself to become a good citizen.

20. Thus, not all people in prison are appropriate for grant of furlough or parole. Obviously, society must isolate those who show patterns of preying upon victims. Yet administrators ought to encourage those offenders

who demonstrate a commitment to reconcile with society

and whose behaviour shows that aspire to live as law- abiding citizens. Thus, parole program should be used as a tool to shape such adjustments.

21. To sum up, in introducing penal reforms, the State that runs the administration on behalf of the society and for the benefit of the society at large cannot be unmindful of

safeguarding the legitimate rights of the citizens in regard to their security in the matters of life and liberty. It is for this reason that in introducing such reforms, the

authorities cannot be oblivious of the obligation to the society to render it immune from those who are prone to

criminal tendencies and have proved their susceptibility to indulge in criminal activities by being found guilty (by a Court) of having perpetrated a criminal act. One of the

discernible purposes of imposing the penalty of imprisonment is to render the society immune from the criminal for a specified period. It is, therefore,

understandable that while meting out humane treatment to the convicts, care has to be taken to ensure that

kindness to the convicts does not result in cruelty to the society. Naturally enough, the authorities would be

anxious to ensure that the convict who is released on furlough does not seize the opportunity to commit another crime when he is at large for the time-being under the furlough leave granted to him by way of a measure of penal reform.

22. Another vital aspect that needs to be discussed is as to whether there can be any presumption that a person who is convicted of serious or heinous crime is to be, ipso facto, treated as a hardened criminal. Hardened criminal would be a person for whom it has become a habit or way

of life and such a person would necessarily tend to commit crimes again and again. Obviously, if a person has committed a serious offence for which he is convicted, but at the same time it is also found that it is the only crime he has committed, he cannot be categorized as a

hardened criminal. In his case consideration should be as

to whether he is showing the signs to reform himself and become a good citizen or there are circumstances which

would indicate that he has a tendency to commit the crime again or that he would be a threat to the society. Mere nature of the offence committed by him should not be a factor to deny the parole outrightly. Wherever a

person convicted has suffered incarceration for a long time, he can be granted temporary parole, irrespective of the nature of offence for which he was sentenced. We may hasten to put a rider here, viz. in those cases where

a person has been convicted for committing a serious

office, the competent authority, while examining such cases, can be well advised to have stricter standards in mind while judging their cases on the parameters of god

conduct, habitual offender or while judging whether he could be considered highly dangerous or prejudicial to the public peace and tranquility etc.

23. There can be no cavil in saying that a society that

believes in the worth of the individuals can have the quality of its belief judged, at least in part, by the quality of its prisons and services and recourse made available to

the prisoners. Being in a civilized society organized with law and a system as such, it is essential to ensure for every citizen a reasonably dignified life. If a person commits any crime, it does not mean that by committing a crime, he ceases to be a human being and that he can be deprived of those aspects of life which constitute human dignity. For a prisoner all fundamental rights are an enforceable reality, though restricted by the fact of imprisonment. {See - Sunil Batra (II) v. State (UT of Delhi) (1980) 3 SCC 488 , Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India

(1978) 1 SCC 248 and Charles Sobraj v. Superintendent Central Jai, Tihar, New Delhi, (1978) 4 SCC 104.

24. It is also to be kept in mind that by the time an application for parole is moved by a prisoner, he would

have spent some time in the jail. During this period,

various reformatory methods must have been applied. We can take judicial note of this fact, having regard to such

reformation facilities available in modern jails. One would know by this time as to whether there is a habit of relapsing into crime in spite of having administered correctional treatment. This habit known as "recidivism"

reflects the fact that the correctional therapy has not brought in the mind of the criminal. It also shows that criminal is hardcore who is beyond correctional therapy. If the correctional therapy has not made in itself, in a

particular case, such a case can be rejected on the

aforesaid ground i.e. on its merits."

6. It is evidently clear from the aforesaid judgment that

the Hon'ble Supreme Court itself emphasized on the aspect of

rehabilitation, continuity of life and constructive hopes for

convicts and prisoners and for the reformation even while they

are undergoing incarceration.

7. Judged in light of the aforesaid exposition of law, the

only ground taken by the respondents to reject the request of

parole is that the petitioner has been convicted for a serious and

heinous offence and nothing more, cannot itself be a ground for

denying the petitioner parole in accordance with the provisions of

H.P. Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968.

8. Before parting, it needs to be observed that as per

the instructions imparted by the Superintendent of Police, Una,

the petitioner has not given any threat or exercised pressure on

the complainant or the witnesses, but it is the complainant of the

case, who has raised objection qua the parole of the petitioner.

However, no factual or reasonable foundation has been set-forth

for such objection. Even otherwise, such questions have already

been considered and answered in the judgment referred to here-

in-above, which clearly provides that it is only cases where there

is some material before the Court, parole should be extended by

taking a humanistic approach so as to afford the convict an

opportunity to solve his personal and family problems and enable

him to maintain his links with the society.

9. Apart from the above, we may, at this stage, take

note of a recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case

titled as Shor Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., in

Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 58 of 2020, decided on August

05, 2020, wherein the only ground for opposing release of the

petitioner therein on probation was that he had been convicted

for grave and serious offences and in case he is released, there

would be a chance that he may repeat the offences, which would

send a negative message against the justice system in the

society. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held as under:

"Pursuant to our order dated 30.10.2017, an order dated 22.01.2018 has been passed in which it is recorded that though the petitioner has undergone 28 years 08 months and 21 days without remission (otherwise including remission) having undergone imprisonment of 37 years 01 month and 18 days, yet

premature release cannot be given in the facts of this case as the prisoner along with 20 co-accused committed the murder of 11 persons with deadly weapons and injured others.

.

This being the case, the order states " premature

release of this kind of prisoner would send a negative message against the justice system in the society". It was then also mentioned that Senior Superintendent of

Police and the District Magistrate have confirmed that the prisoner is not incapacitated from committing crime.

Section 2 of the United Provinces Prisoners

Release on Probation Act, 1938 (" the U.P. Act" for short) states:

"2. Power of Government to release by licence on

conditions imposed by them. Notwithstanding

anything contained in Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898), where a person is confined in prison under a sentence of

imprisonment and it appears to the State Government from his antecedents and his conduct in the prison that he is likely to abstain from crime

and lead a peaceable life, if he is released from prison, the State Government may by licence

permit him to be released on condition that he be placed under the supervision or authority of a Government Officer or of a person professing the

same religion as the prisoner, or such secular institution or such society belonging to the same religion as the prisoner as may be recognized by the State Government for this purpose, provided such other person, institution or society is willing to take charge of him."

It is clear that under this Section what has to be seen by the State Government is (i) antecedents (ii) conduct in the prison and (iii) the person, if released, is

likely to abstain from crime and lead a peaceable life. If having regard to these factors, the person is released, the State Government may do so on conditions stated in the Section.

A reading of the order dated 22.01.2018 shows

that the Joint Secretary, Government of U.P. has failed to apply his mind to the conditions of Section 2 of the U.P. Act. 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. Conduct in prison has not been referred to at all and the Senior Superintendent of

P:olice and the District Magistrate confirming that the prisoner is not "incapacitated" from committing the crime is not tantamount to stating that he is likely to

abstain from crime and lead a peaceable life if released

from prison."

10. The issue in question is otherwise squarely covered

by the judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in

CMP No. 3970 of 2020 in CWP No. 2931 of 2019, titled 'Mrs.

Har Dei versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others', decided

on 03.06.2020 and the judgment passed by this Bench in CWP

No. 414 of 2020, titled Mrs. Kavita Thakur versus State of

H.P. and others, decided on 25.06.2020, CWP No. 529 of

2018, titled Jagat Ram Versus State of Himachal Pradesh

and others, decided on 26.06.2012 and CWP No. 663 of 2020,

titled Sajid versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others,