SAJITH N S Vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 under Sec.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 under Sec.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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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: