- (1.) THE petitioner Salim Mohd., on being convicted for offence punishable under Sections 396, 148, 342, 458, 397 and 398 I.P.C. under the judgment dated 11.8.2000 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khetri (Jhunjhunu) is undergoing life term imprisonment at Central Jail, Ajmer. On completion of 14 years of actual imprisonment he preferred D.B. Criminal Parole Writ Petition No.1071/2012 (Mohd. Salim Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) before this Court, which came to be disposed of on 16.2.2012 by directing the State Level Parole committee to consider and decide the case of petitioner for grant of permanent parole expeditiously in accordance with the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958.
(2.) IN pursuant to the order aforesaid the State Level Parole Committee in its meeting dated 20.4.2012 considered the case of petitioner and refused for permanent parole on the following counts :- [i] The petitioner is not entitled for permanent parole as per Rule 10 of the Rules of 1958 as a period of 11 months was yet to be completed from the last date of availing earlier parole; [ii] The Senior Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate have made negative remarks for the grant of permanent parole; and [iii] The Probation Officer, Muradabad has also not recommended for grant of permanent parole to the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the decision of State Level Parole Committee, this petition for writ is preferred. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating therein that as on 23.9.2012 the petitioner has already served 15 years, 09 months and 16 days sentence of imprisonment excluding jail remission for a period of 01 year, 04 months and 04 days. As per the respondents, the impediment as per Rule 10 is not applicable in the present case in view of the fact that the petitioner is claiming permanent parole, however, in view of the negative remarks made by the District Magistrate, Senior Superintendent of Police, Muradabad and the District Probation Officer, Muradabad, the State level Parole Committee has rightly refused for grant of permanent parole to the petitioner. We have examined the entire record including the adverse remarks communicated by District Magistrate, Muradabad, Senior Superintendent of Police, Muradabad and the District Probation Officer, Muradabad. So far as the negative remarks made by the District Magistrate, Muradabad are concerned, those are based on the remarks communicated to him by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Muradabad. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Muradabad under a letter dated 4.4.2012 mentioned that the prisoner committed offence in the State of Rajasthan, therefore, the same is having no effect at his native place in the State of Uttar Pradesh. It is also noticed that the petitioner is coming from an ordinary background with a small family. It is also stated by Senior Superintendent of Police, Muradabad that no complaint is received about the conduct and character of the prisoner. Inspite of the contents noticed above, the Senior Superintendent of Police made a request for not releasing the petitioner on permanent parole. The District Probation Officer, Muradabad also recommended for not releasing the petitioner on parole, though, he accepted that such release shall not have adverse effect for society in general. The District Probation Officer noticed that the family of the petitioner is maintaining normal relations with its neighbours and they are not having any kind of animosity with anybody. The reason given by the District Probation Officer for not releasing the petitioner on parole is his young age. The State Level Parole Committee acted upon the recommendations made by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Muradabad, District Magistrate, Muradabad and District Probation Officer, Muradabad and refused for grant of parole. As already stated in the proceeding paras, as a matter of fact, neither the Senior Superintendent of Police nor the District Probation Officer mentioned any negative point that may be sufficient to deny permanent parole to the petitioner under the Rules of 1958. In quite cryptic manner recommendations are made by the officers mentioned above for not granting parole to the petitioner.
(3.) PERMANENT parole under the Rules of 1958 is available to the convict prisoners with a pious object of their rehabilitation with natural flow in the stream of society. The presumption is that a man who has suffered prison for 14 years has reformed himself to the extent of getting out from the State custody to the larger custody i.e. of society. On basis of this presumption by way of permanent parole custody of a convict prisoner is required to be handed over to the society which is necessary in view of the basic human instinct of community living. A human being deserves to be kept with society being a social animal till he does not cause harm to the fundamentals of the society itself. The permanent parole as designed under the Rules of 1958 if denied without proper application of mind, without taking into consideration the object of such parole, then it can be safely said that the authority competent for grant of such parole is not having adequate faith with the society which is a minimum requirement to have developed socio economic system. Permanent parole to a convict prisoner is necessary not only to rehabilitate a person or to bring him in a main stream of the society, but also to ensure strength of a society to accommodate even a person who at one point of time acted against the normal settled values of the society. The custody of society in such cases plays a very vital role to strengthen human being in person and also at community level. At the same time, it is also relevant to notice that if a person who has suffered imprisonment for good 14 years and whose conduct is yet not suitable for community living and whose hostility towards the social system and other human beings is apparent, then the competent authority may deny for permanent parole by recording such circumstances. So far as facts of present case are concerned, suffice to mention here that as per jail history ticket of the petitioner and the facts stated by the Senior Superintendent of Police and the District Probation Officer, Muradabad, we do not find any wrong with the petitioner sufficient to deny permanent parole to him. As a matter of fact the respondents should have granted permanent parole to him by examining basic contents of the remarks made by the Senior Superintendent of Police and the District Probation Officer, Muradabad. The petition for writ for the reasons given above deserves acceptance. Accordingly, the same is allowed. The respondents are directed to release the petitioner on permanent parole expeditiously as far as possible on or before 10.10.2012. ;