Court’s Decision:
The Delhi High Court allowed the petitioner to be granted parole for a period of four weeks, despite the new charges filed against him under the Arms Act, which arose while he was on emergency parole. The court acknowledged the petitioner’s positive jail conduct, his ongoing reformation, and the recommendations made for his premature release. The parole was granted under specific conditions, including furnishing a personal bond, regular reporting to local authorities, and surrendering upon the expiration of the parole period.
Facts:
The petitioner had been convicted for the crime of murder under Section 302/232/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in 2014 and was sentenced to life imprisonment. The conviction stemmed from a case arising out of FIR No. 161/2008, registered at Police Station Amar Colony, Delhi. The petitioner’s appeal against his conviction was dismissed in 2015. During his time in prison, the petitioner had been granted parole and furlough on multiple occasions, approximately 13 times, without any misuse of the liberty granted. However, during one of these parole periods, specifically on emergency parole in 2023, the petitioner was charged under the Arms Act (Sections 25/54/59) in FIR No. 120/23, leading to a fresh charge sheet. This posed a potential obstacle to his parole request. Despite this, the petitioner had served approximately 17 years in prison, including the remission period, and was recommended for premature release by the Sentence Review Board in 2022.
Issues:
The primary issue in the case was whether the petitioner, who had been charged with offences under the Arms Act while on emergency parole, should be granted parole again. The respondent (State) argued that due to the new charges, the petitioner was not eligible for parole until two years had passed since the commission of the new offence. The court needed to determine if parole should be granted, considering the new charges and the petitioner’s behavior.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
The petitioner argued that the rejection of his parole request was unjust and lacked proper consideration of his previous good behavior. He pointed out that in all prior parole and furlough periods, he had not committed any crimes or misused the liberty granted. He stressed his reformation, supported by his good conduct in jail, including his work as a Ward Safai Sahayak. Furthermore, he mentioned that he had served over 17 years in prison, factoring in remission, and had been recommended for premature release by the Sentence Review Board. Thus, he requested the Court to allow his parole for a period of two months, emphasizing his continued reformation and contribution to society.
Respondent’s Arguments:
The respondent, represented by the State, countered by emphasizing that the petitioner had been charged with offences under the Arms Act while on parole. This new charge led the respondent to argue that the petitioner was ineligible for parole until two years had passed since the alleged commission of the offence, which would be on 08.03.2025. Therefore, the respondent contended that the petitioner should not be granted parole before this date.
Analysis of the Law:
The court examined the relevant provisions of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2019, which set guidelines for granting parole. According to Rule 1210 (sub-rule III and IV), parole is not granted to a convict who has committed a crime during a previous parole or furlough period. Furthermore, the convict must not have violated any terms or conditions set for their previous parole or furlough. The court also reviewed the rehabilitation principles that guide the decision to grant parole, considering the positive contributions of the petitioner while in prison, including his good conduct and work as a Ward Safai Sahayak.
Precedent Analysis:
The Court referred to the general principle that parole is granted based on the behavior and reform of the convict. Although the petitioner had committed a new offence during parole, the Court noted the Sentence Review Board’s recommendation for premature release, which suggested that the petitioner had reformed himself. The Court emphasized that parole serves a rehabilitative function and should not be denied merely based on new charges unless the offence during parole was severe enough to undermine the purpose of parole.
Court’s Reasoning:
The Court reasoned that while the petitioner had committed an offence during the parole period, his overall behavior in prison had been satisfactory, and he had shown signs of reformation. The Court noted that the petitioner had been granted furlough and parole several times without misusing the liberty, and his conduct in prison, except for the new charges, had been positive. The recommendation for premature release by the Sentence Review Board was also significant in supporting the notion of the petitioner’s reform. Given the circumstances, the Court found that the petitioner should be granted parole, taking into account the duration of his imprisonment, including remission, and his demonstrated positive behavior.
Conclusion:
The High Court granted the petitioner parole for four weeks, subject to specific conditions. These included the requirement for the petitioner to provide a personal bond with a surety, report weekly to the local police station, and remain within the jurisdiction of the National Capital Territory of Delhi. The petitioner was also required to provide a contact number and surrender to the Jail Superintendent immediately upon the expiry of the parole period. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.
Implications:
This decision underscores the importance of the rehabilitative function of parole, recognizing the petitioner’s reform and good conduct during his incarceration. It also highlights the Court’s willingness to balance legal provisions with the principle of rehabilitation, even in cases where new offences have been committed during parole. The case suggests that parole may still be granted to convicts who demonstrate significant efforts toward reform and have not misused the liberties granted during previous paroles, while also emphasizing the need to consider each case on its individual merits.
