Denying parole over inability to pay surety discriminatory: Punjab and Haryana High Court
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that imposing steep financial conditions for parole, without assessing a convict’s economic capacity, amounts to discrimination based on wealth, leading to social marginalisation.
The ruling came in a case where a convict, granted parole on account of good conduct, was unable to avail the benefit due to the burden of furnishing surety bonds worth Rs 4 lakh. Parole must be “accessible in substance and not merely in form”, the court observed.
“The imposition of onerous financial conditions upon a prisoner, without due consideration of his economic capacity, amounts to discrimination on the basis of wealth and it results in social marginalisation,” observed Justice Harpreet Singh Brar. Such an approach transformed a constitutional right into a privilege accessible only to the economically advantaged individuals, the court said.
The Bench was told that the petitioner was granted parole for 10 weeks in view of his good conduct. But the order stipulated that the release would be subject to the furnishing of two surety bonds of Rs 2 lakh each.
The petitioner submitted he had no surviving “immediate family member” to assist him in arranging the sureties. He approached the HC, seeking quashing of the impugned condition.
“Keeping any convict behind bars when he is, otherwise, eligible to be released on parole, merely for the reason of financial incapacity, is thoroughly unjustified in view of the constitutional spirit,” the Bench stated.
After examining the facts and circumstances of the case, the HC concluded: “The condition of furnishing two surety bonds of Rs 2 lakh each vide warrant of temporary release is arbitrary and disproportionate. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the said condition is hereby set aside. Further, the petitioner is directed to be released on parole granted to him, upon the furnishing of a personal bond of Rs 20, 000,” Justice Brar ordered.
