NAGPUR: Expressing deep anguish over rampant misuse of Prisons (Bombay Furlough & Parole) Rules, 1959, by convicts, the Nagpur bench of Bombay high court has termed them "meaningless" in the current context, and asked the Maharashtra government to review them. The court said that the present set of rules could enable a convict to remain outside for 105 days in a year, creating terror in the minds of victims, relatives and eyewitnesses. The remarks gain significance in view of the controversy over parole granted to Sanjay Dutt and some other Bombay blast convicts recently.
"The government is providing luxury to those convicted of serious offences by allowing them to remain outside for three-and-a-half-months. The rule-making authority ought to think about the victims, witnesses, their relatives and friends, who always have an apprehension about the convict moving in their society, eye to eye, resulting in fear of and threat from the convicts," the HC said."In our opinion, the government ought to restore confidence of the common man and the sufferers. With the change in times, so also overall degradation of moral standard in the society, (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, deserve overall changes for restoration of people's faith," a division bench comprising justices Arun Chaudhari and ZA Haq stated.
The verdict is significant considering that Bollywood star Sanjay Dutt and his co-convicts Mujib Parkar and Zebunisa Kazi, convicted for their alleged role in Bombay blasts, were granted parole on medical grounds and are out of jail since long. Dutt recently applied for an extension citing critical illness of his wife Maanyata.
The court's significant observations came while dismissing a plea by Amit Gandhi, who was convicted of the rape and murder of an 11-year-old girl from Nandanvan on March 28, 2001. He was sentenced to the gallows by the trial court, and the sentence was later confirmed by the high court. However, the Supreme Court commuted it into a lifer.
Lodged in Nagpur Jail, Gandhi applied for parole citing his mother's serious ailment in January last year but was finally released in September. His leave was extended thrice for 31 days before being rejected. He approached the judiciary, contending that he could stay on parole for 90 days in a year as per rules.
"A prisoner who is frequently released on parole and furlough for 105 days a year, and is moving freely in the society is bound to break the moral of concerned persons, who would then think hundred times before assisting or helping the law enforcement agencies or police. We think this is not good for the rule of law, but is destructive of it," the judges tersely observed while directing its registry to dispatch a copy of the judgment to the Maharashtra chief secretary for further action.
The court added that it was precisely the reason thousands of jailbirds were still absconding after being granted parole/furlough. "A large number of convicts are behind bars for serious offences like rape and murder. Due to their free movement in the society, there is direct or indirect fear or creation of terror in the minds of victims, relatives, friends and eyewitnesses," the judges said.
Censuring the police for sheer negligence while granting parole to the petitioner after nine months without verifying the illness of his mother, after extending his earlier parole, the judges noted that large number of life term convicts from this area are lodged in Nagpur jail despite confirmation of their sentence by the apex court. "It's not known how a majority of them are not lodged in other jails. Besides getting parole, they have fair chance of meeting relatives and friends regularly in jail. There was gross misutilization of the parole and furlough by the petitioner and that is being observed in many cases," the court ruled while dismissing the petition.
No comments:
Post a Comment