HUMAN RIGHTS VfOLATIQNS: JAIL CUSTODY Harassment of the prlsoner, Shri Harbhajan Singh by Superintendent, Blkaner Jail In granting Parole. (Case No. 8572195-96MHRC) In a complaint made to the Commission, one Shri Harbhajan Singh, a convict undergoing life imprisonment in Central Jail, Blkaner levelled corruption charges against the Superintendent of the Central Jail. When the complainant had requested the grant of parole to make arrangements for medical treatment of his wife, it was alleged in the complaint that a false and intentionally wrong report was made to the effect that the complainant had planned to leave the country. According to cornpiainant, the Superintendent of the jail had misused a letter which related to another prisoner with an identical name and who had already been released from the jail on completion of his sentence. In a report submitted to the Commission, Deputy Secretary(Home), Government of Rajasthan, admitted that there had been a mix-up of the papers of the two prisoners. The Superintendent of the jail, while admitting the mistake, called it a clerical error and informed that, after the miistake was noticed, he reported further to the District Magistrate, recommending the granting of parole. However, according to the complainant's son,the mixing up of the papers was deliberate with a view to harassing the complainant, as it had a history to it. It was asserted that parole was granted to the complainant only after his son met the District Magistrate and explained the role played by the Jail Administration. The Commission, not being satisfied with the report of the Government, directed its investigation team to ascertain from the complainant whether a) he was really-satisfiedwith the steps taken; and b) whether there were any surviving grievances. The Commission also directed its investigation team to find out the genuineness of the claim of mixing-up of papers. The findings of the investigationteam corroborated the complainant's version. The mixing-up of the papers of the two prisoners seemed more than a mistake. The investigation team reported that, on 28 August 1994, the day when the complainant was lodged in the Central Jail, Bikaner, the Jail Superintendent had told the complainant's son to arrange for Rs. 20,0001- or else his father would have a bad time inside the jail. A deal was struck for Rs. 14,000/-, out of which Rs. 10,0001- was paid by the son through a warder. Later, after a few months, when the complainant's mother expired, he was able to get 7 days emergency parole by paying Rs. 3,0001- to the Superintendent as illegal gratification. He was also reminded to bring the balance of Rs. 4,000/- when he returned from home. Since he could not pay this money, he was subjected to all forms of harassmentltorture by the Jail Superintendent. Again, at the time of his son's marriage (27 January 19951, the prisoner was granted 7 days emergency parole and, while leaving the Jail, he was once again reminded of the remaining amount of