Himachal Pradesh High Court: In a petition filed by the petitioner seeking to be released on parole, the Division Bench of Tarlok Singh Chauhan* and Bipin Chander Negi, JJ., opined that there was no presumption that a person who was convicted of a serious or a henious crime was to be ipso facto treated as a hardened criminal. The Court further opined that the convicts too must breathe fresh air for atleast some time, provided they maintain good conduct consistently during incarceration and show a tendency to reform themselves and become good citizens. Redemption and rehabilitation of such prisoners must receive due weightage, while they were undergoing imprisonment. Thus, the Court directed the respondents to release the petitioner on parole for a period of twenty-eight days, subject to his furnishing a personal bond of Rs, 2,00,000, with two local sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Superintendent, Model Central Jail, Kanda, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.
Background
In an instant case, the petitioner sought to be released on parole for a period of twenty-eight days as per the Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Rules, 1969, so that he might solve his personal and family issues.
However, the respondents contended that Respondent 2 was convicted for henious crime. Further, the report submitted to the District Magistrate by the District Authorities had discrepancies regarding the date of ‘shradh ceremony’, as the petitioner had provided the date of the shradh ceremony as 14-03-2023, whereas the same was 14-02-2023, and also, recommendation from the Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Dadwa, District Solan was absent.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court opined that there was no presumption that a person who was convicted of a serious or a henious crime was to be ipso facto treated as a hardened criminal. Hardened criminal would be a person for whom it had become a habit and would necessarily commit crime again and again. The Court opined that if a person had committed a serious offence only once, he could not be categorized as a hardened criminal.
The Court opined that the respondents had been completely oblivious that the grant of parole to the convict could afford him to solve his family problems and also, maintain his links with society. The convicts too must breathe fresh air for atleast some time, provided they maintain good conduct consistently during incarceration and show a tendency to reform themselves and become good citizens, Thus, for the good of society, redemption and rehabilitation of such prisoners must receive due weightage, while they were undergoing imprisonment.
The Court opined that the main objectives which a State intended to achieve by punishing the culprit were deterrence, prevention, retribution and reformation. Further, while recognising reformation as one of the objectives, the justification was provided for letting even the life convicts to be on parole for a short period, to afford opportunities to solve their personal problems and breath fresh air for such short period. The Court opined that these gestures on the State’s part along with other measures went a long way for redemption and rehabilitation of such prisoners, as they were ultimately aimed for good of the society, and were in public interest.
Thus, the Court relied on Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan, (2017) 15 SCC 55 and directed the respondents to release the petitioner on parole for a period of twenty-eight days, subject to his furnishing a personal bond of Rs, 2,00,000, with two local sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Superintendent, Model Central Jail, Kanda, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.
[Sewak Ram v. State of H.P., 2023 SCC OnLine HP 1673, decided on 18-12-2023]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: George, Advocate;
For the Respondents: I.N. Mehta, Y.W. Chauhan, Senior Additional Advocate Generals with Sharmila Patial, Additional Advocate General
