ASFAQ versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 11 S.C.R. 571 · Decided: 11-09-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] I 1 S.C.R. 571 
ASFAQ 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. I 0464 of2017) 
SEPTEMBER 11, 2017 
[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.J. 
Parole: 
A 
B 
Application for regu/m· parole for 20 days - By the convict 
[convicted under provisions of Terrorists and Disruptive Activities 
C 
Act (TADA)} - Rejected by Government of India as well as the State 
Government - Writ petition challenging the rejection of parole was 
dismissed by High Court holding that since the Supreme Court had 
decided the appeal affirming conviction, it would be inappropriate 
for the High Court to exercise discretion in favour of the convict-
D 
appellant - On appeal, held: The issue in the present appeal was 
entirely different from the issue in the appeal wherein conviction 
under provisions of TADA was affirmed by Supreme Court -
Therefore, the observation of the High Court that it was 
inappropriate for it to exercise its discretion in favour of the 
appellant, amounts to abdication of the power vested in the High 
E 
Court - However, the parole of20 days was rejected in view of the 
. adverse reports of concerned authorities - The authorities have 
taken into account relevant considerations while rejecting the 
request of parole - Therefore, it is not a flt case for grant of parole. 
Purpose df, and ground5 for granting parole - Held: Release 
F 
of a life convictfrom jail for a short period has to be considered as 
an opportunity not only fo serve his personal and family problems, 
but also to maintain his links with the society - Redemption and 
rehabilitation of prisoners for th~ good of the society must receive 
due weightage, while they are undergoing sentence of 
imprisonment.- Apart from the public purpose ingrained in the 
G 
reformation theory of sentencing, other competing public interest 
has also to be kept in mind while deciding grant of parole - The 
public interest demand~ that habitual offenders and those who have 
tendency to. become threat to law and order of societv, should not 
be released on.parole - Mere nature of the ojjence committed shout</ 
H 
571 
572 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017] ll S.C.R. 
A 
not be a factor to deny the parole outright Iv though in such cases 
stricter standards are to be applied while judging parameters uf 
good c:onduct - There is immediate need to update the Rules }ramed 
by Central Government which regard to parole so as to provide 
suitable guidelines tu those who have to consider such upplicatiuns 
B for grant ofparole. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Parole - ,Distinction from fi1rlough - Discussed. 
Words and Phrases: 
"Habitual Offender' - Meaning of - Discussed. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: L. The observation of the High Court that since 
Supreme Court had decided the appeal of the appellant affirming 
the conviction, jt would not be appropriate for the High Court to 
exercise its discretion in favour of the appellant and if he so 
desired, he m1ight approach the Supreme Court for the said 
purpose, amounts to abdication of the power vested in the High 
Court. Insofar as conviction for the offence for which he was 
charged, i.e. under the provisions of Terriorists and Disruptive 
Activities Act i~ concerned, no doubt that has been upheld till 
Supreme Court. However, the issue before the High Court was 
entirely differeJiit. It was as to whether the appellant was entitled 
to the grant of parole for twenty days which he was claiming. 
Merely because the matter of conviction of the appellant had 
come up to this Court would not mean that the appellant has to 
be relegated to this Court every time, even when he is seeking 
the reliefs unconnected with the main conviction. It is more so 
when in the first instance it is the High Court which is supposed 
to decide such a prayer for parole made by the appellant. (Para 7] 
[581-B-Ef 
2.1 Titer~ is a subtle distinction between parole and 
G furlough. A parole can be defined as conditional release of 
prisoners i.e. a11 early release of a prisoner, conditional on good 
behaviour and regular reporting to the authorities for a set period 
of time. It can also be defined as a form of conditional pardon by 
which the convict is released before the expiration of his term. 
Such a release Qf the prisoner on parole can also be temporarily 
H 
on some basic grounds. In that eventuality, it is to be treated as 
ASFAQ v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. 
573 
mere suspension of the sentence for time being, keeping the A 
quantum of sentence intact
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.