Liberal approach to grant permanent parole to a convict of 80 years of age

Rajasthan High Court: Allowing a writ petition, a divisional bench comprising of Ajay Rastogi and J.K. Ranka, JJ granted permanent parole to the petitioner with a direction to maintain peace and tranquility during parole.

In the present case, the son of the petitioner (convict) was seeking permission for the permanent parole of his mother under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 contending that the petitioner is an infirm lady of 79 years of age and had already served for more than 1/4 th term of her imprisonment, and her conduct in jail had been good and satisfactory, cannot be denied of the permanent parole only on the ground that during the last more than 14.5 years she has not availed of any parole. The respondents contended that there is some dispute relating to the land matter and granting parole may affect the peaceful atmosphere. Hearing the contention of both the parties, the Court granted the permission for the permanent parole to the petitioner relying on the decision in Kalu Singh v State of Rajasthan (D.B. Criminal Parole Writ Petition No. 7213/2010, where this Court held that if the convict is found eligible for grant of permanent parole, he/she may be released on permanent parole irrespective of the fact whether petitioners have availed of first, second and third parole or any of the above; and found that the plea that petitioner cannot be granted permanent parole because she has not availed of any  paroles during her imprisonment cannot be a good reason for depriving her of her human right. The Court also stated here the petitioner is ordinarily ineligible for parole under Rule 14, but a liberal view is to be taken as she is almost touching the age of 80 years, and at this stage she needs company of her children and spend her rest of life peacefully, as the object of granting permanent parole is to slowly draw the misled soul back into the folds of the society. Ganga Devi v.State, D.B. Civil Writ Petition (Parole) No.3026 of 2014, decided on April 9, 2014.

To read the full judgment, click here

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

four + 7 =