- (1.) Incarcerated in Central Jail Jodhpur, a convicted prisoner, Narayan Ram, sent a letter to this Court which has been treated as a letter petition by this Court. The Petitioner has pleaded that vide order dated 19.04.2012, the District Parole Committee Jodhpur had granted him parole for twenty days. However, it has directed him to furnish two sureties of Rs. 30,000/- each and a personal bond of the same amount. According to him, he comes from an extremely poor family. Due to his poverty, the family cannot procure two sureties for the high amount of Rs. 30,000/-. At best he can furnish a personal bond, but that too not of Rs. 30,000/-. It is only due to his utter poverty that he has never taken the benefit of parole, although he has been incarcerated for the last seven and half years. Therefore, he has prayed that the requirement of furnishing two sureties be dispensed with and the amount of personal bond be reduced.
(2.) However, the learned Additional Govt. Advocate claims that the petitioner has completed actual sentence of ten years two months and thirteen days and earned a remission of three years, seven months, and four days. Thus he has completed a total period of incarceration of thirteen years, two months and ten days. But still, he has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner.
(3.) Heard the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate. Although incarceration of a person necessarily implies deprivation of his fundamental rights, but the fundamental rights are not completely obliterated. The twin rights of "life" and "personal liberty" continue to glow even in the dark corners of a prison. Realizing these twin aspects, the Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958 ('the Rules', for short), were created as a piece of social beneficial legislation for the benefit of the large number of convicted prisoners. Even when the convicted prisoner is serving a "term of imprisonment" or of "life imprisonment", he does have a right of consideration of his case for parole, during the parole period personal liberty is restored for a limited period. Repeatedly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court have held that parole serves three purposes; firstly, it re-establishes the link between the prisoner and his family; secondly, it permits the prisoner to move freely in the mainstream of society; thirdly, it is a motivational method to encourage the prisoner to reform himself during the period of incarceration. In fact Rule 13 of the Rules clearly states that parole should be used as a means teach good behaviour to the prisoner.;