AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Thomas P. Joseph, J.—Petitioner is a convict in S.C. No. 1 of 2006 of Sessions Court, Alappuzha now undergoing a life imprisonment at Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram having being admitted to that prison on 18.05.2008. Petitioner applied for parole for a period of one month and it was granted on June 2, 2010 but he was not allowed to leave the Prison. According to the Petitioner, he learned that the Superintendent of Central Prison got the order granting him parole cancelled by the Additional Director General of Police, Prisons (for short, "the ADGP, Prisons") for the reason that a few cases are pending against him of which some are for the offence punishable u/s 420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "the IPC") and hence it was not appropriate to grant parole to him. Petitioner challenged the order cancelling parole in this Court in W.P. (C) No. 24491 of 2010. This Court disposed of that writ petition as per Ext.P2, judgment. The ADGP, Prisons was directed to consider the grant of parole as per law. Accordingly the ADGP, Prisons has considered the question of cancellation of parole and has passed Ext.P3, order cancelling parole granted to the Petitioner. By way of amendment, Petitioner has incorporated a challenge to Ext.P3 also in this writ petition and it is prayed that a direction may be issued to the Respondents to permit Petitioner to go on parole as per order dated June 2, 2010. It is also prayed that Ext.P3, order of the ADGP, Prisons may be quashed. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for Petitioner has contended that pendancy of a few cases referred to in Ext.P3, order does not disentitle Petitioner to get parole. It is contended that other grounds stated by the ADGP, Prisons are not relevant and are not sufficient to refuse parole to the Petitioner. Learned Senior Advocate has also brought to my notice the judgment of this Court dated May 10, 2011 in W.P. (C) No. 13251 of 2011 as per which according to learned Senior Advocate, the co-accused was granted parole. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that it was on the strength of a report submitted by Sub Inspector, Munambam within whose local limits the incident in S.C. No. 1 of 2006 occurred that the ADGP, Prisons has reconsidered the grant of parole to the Petitioner. It is submitted that various cases are pending against Petitioner in various Courts and that most of the cases relate to offence punishable u/s 420 of the IPC for (alleged) cheating of several of the depositors in connection with chitty which Petitioner was conducting during the relevant time. It is submitted that apart from the above, cases involving other IPC offences are also pending against Petitioner. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, safety of Petitioner also requires that he is not released on parole. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that Petitioner is actively associated with gangsters and that his release on parole is likely to create law and order problems. In the circumstances there is no reason to interfere with Ext.P3, order passed by the ADGP, Prisons, it is contended.
So far as pendancy of cases against Petitioner is concerned that question no more survives for decision since this Court in Ext.P2, judgment has observed having reference to the relevant Rules of the Prison Rules that the mere pendancy of cases is no ground to refuse parole. This Court has taken the view that it is only in cases there is an order of remand of Petitioner and the jail authorities are to oblige production warrant issued by the Courts concerned that pendancy of such cases will disentitle Petitioner from being released on parole. In the circumstances and in the light of Ext.P2, judgment the mere pendancy of cases referred to in Ext.P2 is no ground to refuse parole to the Petitioner.
Then the question is whether on other considerations stated in Ext.P3, order parole granted to the Petitioner could have been withdrawn. I have referred to the circumstances learned Public Prosecutor has highlighted. I was given a copy of report of the Sub Inspector, Munambam called for by the ADGP, Prisons based on which parole was cancelled. In that report, the Sub Inspector has referred to the close association Petitioner (allegedly) has with gangsters and the possibility of Petitioner either directly or indirectly involving in fresh offences. The Sub Inspector is also apprehensive of safety to the life of Petitioner himself due to the wrath of depositors who allegedly are cheated by Petitioner and others.
Learned Public Prosecutor has also invited my attention to the statement of mother of the deceased in S.C. No. 1 of 2006 that she is apprehensive that if Petitioner is released on parole, he might attack or harass her other family members as well. It is seen that ADGP, Prisons has also obtained report of the Probationary Officer concerned was of the view that if Petitioner is granted parole it may be subject to conditions.
Fact remained that appropriate authority was inclined to grant parole to the Petitioner as per order dated June 2, 2010. Now the apprehension of Respondents is concerning possibility of Petitioner indulging in other criminal activities directly or indirectly or his own life being in danger. I am of the view that this apprehension of Respondents could be allayed by imposing appropriate conditions on Petitioner. I must also bear in mind that Petitioner was admitted in the prison on 18.05.2008. Thereafter he had not been granted parole. Though in connection with the death of the father and obsequies connected with that co-accused was granted parole as per judgment of this Court dated May 10, 2011 in W.P. (C) No. 13251 of 2011 subject to appropriate conditions. Having regard to the circumstances stated before me and having heard learned Senior Advocate for Petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor I am inclined to think that Petitioner could be granted parole for a period of fifteen days from the date of his release subject to appropriate conditions which the ADGP, Prisons may fix as provided under law and subject to conditions which this Court hereunder fixes.
Resultantly this writ petition is disposed of in the following lines:
(i) Ext.P3, order of the ADGP, Prisons dated 23-11-2010 is modified to the extent that the order dated June 2, 2010 granting parole is limited to a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of release of Petitioner from the Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram subject to the following conditions:
(a) Petitioner shall not during the period he is on parole as aforesaid, enter the local limits of Munambam Police Station.
(b) Petitioner is permitted to visit his family at Coimbatore and be with his family at that place or other place provided he does not enter local limits of Munambam Police Station and provided further, that wherever Petitioner is, he shall report the place and period of stay at such place and contact telephone number if any to the Station House Officer of the Police Station within whose local limits his house at Coimbatore is situated.
(c) It is made clear that it is open to the Station House Officer, Munambam Police Station to depute a constable from that station to accompany Petitioner in mufti wherever he is during the period of parole.
(d) It is directed that Petitioner shall not during the time he is on parole get involved in any criminal act directly or indirectly.
(e) It is made clear that it is open to the ADGP, Prisons to impose other appropriate conditions if any required and as permitted by the relevant Rules, also to ensure that on expiry of the period of parole, Petitioner surrendered before Superintendent of Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram.
(f) The ADGP, Prisons may forward a copy of this judgment to the S.H.O referred to in Clause (b) above to ensure compliance of the condition with direction to such S.H.O to report to the ADGP, Prisons in case of any non compliance.