Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ramesh s/o Girjaram Bansode, a convict serving life imprisonment for murder, filed a Criminal Writ Petition challenging the orders of the Superintendent of Central Prison, Aurangabad (dated 10.04.2018) and the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad (dated 10.05.2018) rejecting his application for parole. The petitioner sought parole to cultivate his agricultural land, claiming that his family depended on agriculture and that he needed to sow crops. The respondents rejected the parole application citing overcrowding in the prison and lack of escort police. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that parole is a reformative process and not a suspension of sentence. The court noted that the purpose of parole is to enable the prisoner to maintain family and social ties and to engage in productive activities. The court observed that overcrowding in prison is a relevant factor for granting parole, but the authorities must also consider the purpose of parole and the conduct of the prisoner. The impugned orders were set aside as they did not adequately consider these aspects. The court allowed the petition and directed the respondents to release the petitioner on parole for a period of 30 days, subject to the petitioner furnishing a personal bond and surety, and reporting to the police station once a week. The court also directed the petitioner to surrender after the expiry of the parole period.
Headnote
A) Prisons and Correctional Services - Parole - Agricultural Purposes - Maharashtra Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 - Rule 4 - The petitioner, a life convict, sought parole to cultivate his agricultural land. The Superintendent and Divisional Commissioner rejected the application citing prison overcrowding and lack of escort. The High Court held that parole is a reformative process and not a suspension of sentence; overcrowding is a relevant factor but cannot be the sole ground for rejection; the authorities must consider the purpose of parole and the prisoner's conduct. The court allowed parole for 30 days subject to conditions. (Paras 4-8) B) Prisons and Correctional Services - Parole - Overcrowding in Prison - Maharashtra Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 - The court observed that overcrowding in prison is a relevant factor for granting parole, but the authorities must also consider the purpose of parole and the conduct of the prisoner. The impugned orders were set aside as they did not adequately consider these aspects. (Paras 5-7) C) Prisons and Correctional Services - Parole - Reformative Process - The court emphasized that parole is a reformative process and not a suspension of sentence. The object of parole is to enable the prisoner to maintain family and social ties and to engage in productive activities like agriculture. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner-convict is entitled to be released on parole for agricultural purposes, and whether the impugned orders rejecting parole are sustainable.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 10.04.2018 and 10.05.2018 are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to release the petitioner on parole for a period of 30 days, subject to the petitioner furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 15,000/- and a surety of the like amount, and reporting to the police station once a week. The petitioner shall surrender after the expiry of the parole period.
Law Points
- Parole is a reformative process
- not a suspension of sentence
- Parole can be granted for agricultural purposes
- Overcrowding in prison is a relevant factor for parole
- Parole Rules 1959 allow parole for agricultural operations
- Parole is a right of a prisoner subject to conditions.
