AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Nagaprasanna, J
The petitioner is before this Court seeking grant of parole to her son, who is said to be in judicial custody for the last 10 years having been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302, 120(B), 506 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in SC No.35/2015.
Heard Shri Sirajuddin Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Rahul Cariappa, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 and 2.
Shri Sirajuddin Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the reason for seeking parole is the mother's illness. The illness has been persisting for the last one year is his submission and the petitioner's son has not been on parole even once.
The learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State would oppose grant of parole on the score that the petitioner's son is involved in three other crimes which are of 10years vintage for offence punishable under Section 323 or 324, otherwise. Be that as it may.
Pendency of those crimes for the last 10years will not come in the way or cause any impediment for grant of parole to the petitioner's son.
In the light of the aforesaid circumstances, the mother's illness and the son wanting to be with the mother, I deem it appropriate to grant the petitioner's son parole for a period of 30 days to begin from 17.03.2025 to 15.04.2025.
For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed in part.
(ii) Mandamus issues respondent No.2 to consider the representation of the petitioner and release the petitioner's son on parole for 30 days, from the forenoon of 17.03.2025, till the evening of 15.04.2025.
(iii) The respondent No.2 shall stipulate strict conditions as are usually stipulated, to ensure the return of the detenue (CTP No.3389) to the gaol and that he shall not commit any other offence during the period of parole.
(iv) The petitioner's son (CTP No.3389) shall mark his attendance in the jurisdictional police station, weekly once throughout the period of his parole and it would be the responsibility of the jurisdictional police to take him to gaol, in the event, the petitioner's son would evade going back to the gaol, after the expiry of the period of parole.
(v) Registry is directed to communicate this order to respondent Nos.2, by way of electronic mail, forthwith.
(vi) The petitioner is at liberty to seek extension of parole, which shall be considered looking at the conduct of the petitioner's son – convict while he is out on parole.