R.S.CHAUHAN, J. - (1.) HAVING undergone regular paroles, having been shifted from Central Jail, Ajmer to the Open Air Camp in Bikaner, two convicted prisoners, who are real brothers, are still running from pillar to post hoping to be given the benefit of the permanent parole under the Rajasthan Prisons (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958. Both the prisoners, Dhanraj and Phoolchand, have sent a joint letter to this Court, which has been treated as a letter petition by this Court.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that both the petitioners were tried for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, and for offences under Sections 3/25, /27 of the Arms Act and were sentenced to life imprisonment and for other terms of sentence by the Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Nagaur, by judgment dated 07.12.2001. They filed appeals before this Court. However, by judgment dated 19.02.2004, their appeals have been dismissed by this Court. Admittedly, as on 18.08.2012, Dhanraj has completed a total sentence of 14 years, 9 months, and 21 days excluding remission of 4 years, 3 months, and 6 days. Similarly, Phoolchand, as on 18.08.2012 has completed total sentence of 14 years, 8 months and 27 days excluding remission of 4 years, 1 months, and 5 days. During the period of incarceration, they have availed the benefit of several paroles. Considering their excellent behavior in the jail, Dhanraj was shifted from Central Jail, Ajmer to Open Air Camp, Bikaner by order dated 13.03.2009; Phoolchand was shifted from Central Jail, Ajmer to Open Air Camp, by order dated 23.09.2009. 3. Considering the fact that they were eligible for permanent parole, considering the fact that they reformed themselves to the point of being shifted to the Open Air Camp - where they can easily mingle with the mainstream of the society at large - the petitioners had hoped that their cases for permanent parole would be considered by the respondents. However, since the respondents were unmoved by the petitioners' self reform, they did not grant the benefit of permanent parole to the petitioners. Consequently, Dhanraj preferred two separate parole writ petitions, viz. D.B. Parole Writ Petition No. 4633/2012 and 5074/2012 before this Court. By orders dated 04.07.2012 and 06.07.2012 respectively, this Court directed the respondents to dispose of his application for permanent parole within a period of one month. In pursuance of the orders passed by this Court, his application was forwarded to the Director General (Prisons)/State Level Parole Committee for his direction. Phoolchand also filed a parole writ before this Court, viz. D.B. Parole Writ Petition No.12764/2011. By order dated 22.12.2011 this Court directed the Committee to dispose of his application. But by order dated 17.08.2012, the State Parole Committee has rejected his case. However, despite the direction of this Court, the case of Dhanraj is still undecided. Therefore, both Dhanraj and Phoolchand have prayed that they should be released on permanent parole by this Court. The State in its reply has merely pleaded that the case of Dhanraj is pending consideration before the State Level Parole Committee whereas the case of Phoolchand has already been rejected by the said Committee. Therefore, they pleaded that the petition does not deserve to be entertained and is liable to be dismissed. The stand being taken by the State is, indeed, curious. The respondents have ignored the entire philosophy behind the parole rules. The parole rules were designed as part of the reformative theory of punishment in order to motivate the prisoners to reform themselves while they serve their sentence. The reformative theory of punishment dilutes the deterrent and retributive theory of punishment. According to the reformative theory of punishment, if a convicted prisoner is conditioned in a positive manner, he can be tought to reform himself, and to change his criminal ways. The aim of the reformative theory is to change the convicted prisoner to the point where he can be brought back into the mainstream of the society as a contributory member to the society. Instead of his being a liability on the society, his being a threat to the society, it is hoped that by giving certain privileges, such as parole, a prisoner could be transformed into a law abiding citizen and into an asset.
(3.) IT is with this philosophy in mind, that the parole rules entitled a prisoner to the benefit of parole periodically after he has fulfilled certain requirements. In case a convicted prisoner were to complete four regular paroles, in case he were to observe excellent behavior during his furloughs, he would be entitled to be released on permanent parole. Similarly , if a convicted prisoner reforms himself to the extent that he no longer poses a threat to the society, and it is felt that he can be brought back into the society, such prisoners are transferred from the confines of a jail to the open air camps. The open air camps are a half- way house between solid walls of a jail, to the freedom of movement enjoyed by a law abiding citizen. In the open air camps, the prisoners are permitted to take up a job outside the open air camp, to earn a livelihood, to look after their families, and to return back to the open air camp in the evening. The fact that a convicted prisoner has been transferred to the open air camp is a testimony enough to prove the fact that the convicted prisoner is no longer a threat to law and order in the society. It is a proof of the extent of his self-reform. It is a sorry state of affairs where eligible convicted prisoners for permanent parole have repeatedly approached this Court in order to goad the State into action. The functionaries of the State have to be alive to their responsibilities towards a convicted prisoner. Convicted prisoners cannot be treated as residents of a twilight zone. They cannot be treated a subject matter for seminars and conferences, yet, forgotten and forlorne. The respondents have a constitutional duty to restore the personal liberty of a convicted prisoner, if he is eligible for the same. Similarly, they have a statutory duty under the parole rules to grant the benefit of permanent parole to those who are eligible for it. By maintaining a studied silence over their constitutional and statutory rights, the State functionaries are violating the constitutional philosophy, and the legal rights of the convicted prisoners. By their utter inaction, they are violating the very essence of the reformative theory. They are failing in their sacred duty towards the prison population. ;