C.W.P. (Parole) No. 6207 of 2005. Case: Pappu Khan Vs The State of Rajasthan and others. Rajasthan High Court
| Case Number | C.W.P. (Parole) No. 6207 of 2005 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Satya Pal Poshwal, Adv. and For Respondents: S. N. Sandhu, Addl. Govt. Advocate. |
| Judges | V. K. Bali and R. S. Chauhan, JJ. |
| Issue | Prisons Act (9 of 1894) - Section 59; Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules (1958) Rule 2 |
| Citation | 2005 CriLJ 4732 |
| Judgement Date | September 30, 2005 |
| Court | Rajasthan High Court |
Judgment:
R. S. Chauhan, J.
-
Repenting his sins, serving his life imprisonment term, the petitioner, Pappu Khan, sought few gasps of fresh air by pleading for regular parole under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisons (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958 (henceforth referred to as the 'Parole Rules'). Involved in a murder case on 25th March, 1999, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment vide judgment dated 19th July, 2002 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 Kishangarh Bas.
-
According to the petitioner so far he has served six years and four months imprisonment. Since, the petitioner was eligible for the regular parole of twenty days under Rule 9 of the Parole Rules, he applied for the same. However, vide order dated 7th July, 2005 the District Parole Committee was pleased to reject his parole application. Consequently, the writ petitioner before us.
-
Mr. Satya Pal Poshwal the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has contended that the petitioner's case for parole has been rejected because of the adverse police report against him. According to the said police report in case, the petitioner were released, the law and order situation would be disturbed. According to the learned counsel the police has mechanically submitted the report. There is no evidence available on record for the police to come to such adverse conclusion against him. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the Advisory Committee has based its decision on irrelevant consideration. Thus, the order dated 7th July, 2005 should be quashed.
-
On the other hand, Mr. Bramhanand Sandu, the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has contended that the petitioner had been convicted for having murdered his own uncle. Therefore, there is every likelihood that peace would be disturbed because of the petitioner being released on parole.
-
We have heard the learned counsels. Parole has a recent history as part of the military law which were practised in some European countries and in the United States of America. A detenue was released on parole, i.e. for a limited number of days, so that he could go back and live with his family for the interim period. The emergence of Reformative Theory of punishment in the 20th Century saw a sea change in the Prison System. Prisoners were no longer to be chained and forgotten; they were to be reformed and brought back into the society. In order to encourage the prisoners to reform themselves...
To continue reading
Request your trial