Parole A Progressive Measure Of Correctional Services, Enables Convict To Re-Establish Social Ties, Motivates To Maintain Discipline: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has observed that the foundational concept of parole is to enable a convict to re-establish his social ties in the community and with his family, and reintegrate himself in the society. Denying relief to a man convicted for the offence of murder in three cases, Justice Chandra Dhari Singh added that the provision for parole, under Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, is seen as a positive reinforcement measure towards the convict. Importantly, the Court observed thus:"The foundational concept of parole is to enable a convict to, time and after, re-establish his social ties in the community and his family and reintegrate himself in the society. It enables him to maintain his social and familial obligations and responsibilities as well as maintain contact with the world outside the prison. Parole is usually a reward for good conduct during the time period of the serving of sentence by the convict."The Court noted that the since the Prisons Act, 1894 does not make a specific provision for parole and furlough, each State has the power to formulate guidelines on parole and furlough. Accordingly, the Court perused the Delhi Prisons Act, 2000, and the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, together which form the basis of guidelines of parole in Delhi."The Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, recognize parole as a progressive measure of correctional services, since, the grant of parole motivates the convict to maintain discipline and good conduct during his time in custody. The provision for parole is seen as a positive reinforcement measure towards the convict and the judiciary has reiterated the significance of the provision in several cases before it," the Court said. The Court was dealing with a plea seeking grant of parole to the petitioner for a period of 3 months, in three FIRs registered against him. The petitioner sought parole in FIRs registered under sec. 302 and 201 of IPC wherein he was convicted for life imprisonment.It was the case of the petitioner that he had been in custody for over 14 years and that his mother expired on 21st January, 2020, however he was not able to perform her last rites and rituals, since, he was in custody. The petitioner sought parole on the ground of firstly, to find a suitable match for his daughter and secondly, to be present for the death anniversary of his mother.It was thus submitted that the petitioner had been released earlier on parole four times, and furlough seven times, however, since, 2019, he had not been given parole and this was the only opportunity for him to re-establish his social ties and reinstate himself in the society.The State vehemently opposed the plea by submitting that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of the parole, since, he had been convicted for grave and heinous offences of murder in all the three FIRs.The Court said that the first factor to be considered while considering an application for parole is the conduct of the convict and that the Rules, also, provide for grounds subject to which a parole may be granted or rejected.Perusing the Nominal Roll, the Court found that on two occasions the petitioner was awarded punishment under prison offences. The Court noted that as per Condition II of the Rule 1210, the conduct of the convict is to be considered while granting parole, when he had been awarded a major punishment and whether such conduct has been satisfactory for the following two years or not."The petitioner herein had been awarded punishment for prison offences on 1st October, 2020, which necessitates him to show his good conduct for two years since the last punishment. As such the requisite time period of two years has not lapsed as of yet and the petitioner shall prove his satisfactory conduct till the time such period is undergoing in order to satisfy the condition under the Rules," the Court said. The Court also noted that as per Rule 1211 (VIII), it has been provided that in cases where the prisoner has been convicted for multiple murders, he shall not be granted parole except under special circumstances, as per the discretion of the competent authority. Noting that the petitioner had been convicted in three cases under Section 302 and 201 of IPC for rigorous imprisonment for life and looking at the grounds of seeking parole, the Court was of the view that the grounds were not such that may be considered as special circumstances for the grant of parole. "Hence, the parole is barred by the abovesaid Rules," the Court said. It added "Taking into account the abovementioned Rules, the gravity of the offence, and the facts revealed in the Nominal Roll as well as the Status Report, the overall conduct of the petitioner in jail is not found to be satisfactory and the grounds put forth for seeking grant of parole are not found reasonable or urgent."The plea was accordingly disposed of. Case Title: CHANDRAKANT JHA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHICitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 117Click Here To Read Order

Parole A Progressive Measure Of Correctional Services, Enables Convict To Re-Establish Social Ties, Motivates To Maintain Discipline: Delhi HC

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Thapliyal

Parole A Progressive Measure Of Correctional Services, Enables Convict To Re-Establish Social Ties, Motivates To Maintain Discipline: Delhi HC

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers