Vaman Narayan Ghiya vs State of Raj. and Others

The petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.7.2012 passed by the District Parole Advisory Committee, Jaipur whereby the Advisory Committee has rejected the petitioner''s application for first regular parole under the Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was convicted by judgment dated 20.11.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jaipur City for offences under Sections 411, 413 IPC and under Sections 3/25 and 14/25 of the Antiquities & Art Treasures Act, 1972; he was sentenced to life imprisonment. So far, the petitioner has completed twelve years and one month of sentence including remission. Since he has completed more than 1/4th of his sentence, since he was eligible for regular first parole under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958, he applied for the same. However, the District Parole Advisory Committee has rejected his case in its meeting held on 6.7.2012, as reflected in the order dated 16.7.2012. Hence, this petition before this court.

Mr. Anshuman Saxena, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised the following contentions before this court: firstly, the Advisory Committee has ignored the report of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur which was in the petitioner''s favour. Instead, it has relied upon the reports filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, and by the Deputy Director (City), Social Justice and Empowerment Department, Jaipur which are against him.

Secondly, the petitioner''s conduct within the Jail is satisfactory. Since he has reformed himself, therefore, the benefit of first regular parole should be given to him.

Thirdly, it was not necessary for the petitioner to give any reason for seeking a regular parole. But nonetheless, he had sought the parole on the ground that his daughter is yet to be married. In case the regular parole of twenty days were granted to him, he would settle the marriage while being on furlough. Therefore, the petitioner had given a valid reason for seeking a regular parole, although such a reason is not required under the law. This also shows the petitioner''s bonafide. Hence, the order dated 16.7.2012 needs to be interfered with.

On the other hand, Mr. G.S. Rathore, the learned Government Advocate, has contended that the petitioner happens to be a well-known smuggler of antiquities. Initially, twelve cases were registered against him out of which six cases are still under trial. Therefore, the distinct possibility that the petitioner may abscond cannot be ruled out. It is for this reason that both the Deputy Police Commissioner and the Deputy Director, Social Justice & Empowerment Department had expressed their opinion that considering the fact that the petitioner does have contacts even abroad, considering the fact that he is still facing trial in six cases, a grave possibility of his absconding does exist.

Secondly, even if a convicted prisoner has reformed himself, in case the possibility of his absconding exists, then the Advisory Committee is justified in rejecting his case for first regular parole.

Lastly, the petitioner is not the only male member in the family. Both his major son and his brother-in-law, Prakash Chandra, are there to settle the petitioner''s daughter''s marriage.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.

According to Rule 13 of the Rules of 1958, a convicted prisoner cannot claim to be released on parole by way of right. He merely has a right of consideration before the Advisory Committee created under the rules. The Advisory Committee is expected to consider various factors before permitting a convicted prisoner to go out on parole. One of the factors, naturally, would be the social position, the number of cases being faced by the convicted prisoner while being sentenced for a particular criminal case. Another factor to be considered is the serious possibility of the convicted prisoner absconding in case the benefit of parole were to be given to him. Thus, while considering the case of a convicted prisoner, the Advisory Committee weighs the pros and cons, and would have to objectively assess the report of the Superintendent of Central Jail on the one hand, and the report of the police and the Social Welfare Officer on the other hand.

Although according to the report of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur the petitioner may have reformed himself, but according to the report of the police, the petitioner continues to face trial in six cases. Moreover, considering the fact that the petitioner is a well connected person both within India and abroad, the grave possibility that he may escape from the clutches of law cannot be ruled out.

Although it is true that there was no need for the petitioner to give any reason for seeking parole, but even then the reason given by him is not a convincing one. According to the report of the Deputy Director, Social Justice & Empowerment Department, there are other male members in the family who can arrange for the marriage of the petitioner''s daughter. Thus, taking a holistic view of the situation, the Advisory Committee was certainly justified in rejecting the petitioner''s case for first regular parole under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958. For the reasons stated above, this court does not find any illegality or perversity in the order dated 16.7.2012. This petition being devoid of merit is, hereby, dismissed.