AMAL NISHAM Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred challenging the judgment dtd. 25/2/2025 passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting the prayer sought by the petitioner for granting parole to the husband of the appellant, a convict prisoner, undergoing his life sentence at the Central Prison and Correctional Home, Viyyur.

(2.) The learned Single Judge, took note of the adverse police report submitted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, District Special Branch, Thrissur City, and the Inspector of Police, Viyyur Police Station, and came to the conclusion that the refusal to grant parole was in order.

(3.) Sri. Ramesh Chander, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the husband of the appellant is presently undergoing life imprisonment pursuant to his conviction in Crime No. 173 of 2015 of the Peramangalam Police Station and has been continuously serving his sentence since 2015. During the last ten years of incarceration, he was granted interim bail by this Hon'ble Court only on a few occasions. He was first granted interim bail for two months, from 21/1/2019 to 21/3/2019. Subsequently, he was granted interim bail for eight days from 11/8/2020, which was extended by order dated Ext.P4 till 15/9/2020. Thereafter, by order dated Ext.P5, he was granted leave for three days, from 20/3/2021 to 24/3/2021. Other than the aforementioned instances, the convict has not availed parole or leave. It is further submitted that due to his involvement in minor skirmishes at the Central Prison and Correctional Home, Thavanur, the convict was transferred to the Central Prison and Correctional Home, Viyyur, on 15/9/2023. Significantly, no disciplinary action whatsoever has been initiated against him post-transfer. It is further submitted that the Probation Officer has furnished a favourable report and recommended the grant of leave in accordance with the relevant Rules. However, parole was denied owing to an adverse police report. The only reason stated in the report is the existence of ongoing business and property disputes between the convict and his siblings and an apprehension that his release may lead to a law and order situation. The learned counsel points out that for the settlement of business and property disputes between himself and his siblings, arbitration proceedings have already been initiated by the prisoner and the matter is currently pending before the Arbitral Tribunal. The personal presence of the convict is essential to give necessary instructions to his counsel and to adduce both oral and documentary evidence. Finally, it is submitted that, on all previous occasions when the convict was released on interim bail pursuant to directions issued by this Hon'ble Court, there was no incident whatsoever that could be termed as objectionable, and the convict has not engaged in any criminal activity during such periods of release.