NALLURI RAMANAMMA Vs. GOVT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ declaring the action of the first respondent (State Government) in releasing the fourth respondent on parole and extending it from time to time as arbitrary, illegal land without jurisdiction and to direct the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to arrest Respondent No.4 and put him in jail.

(2.) The petitioner herein is widow of one Tirupathaiah who was allegedly murdered by Respondent No.4 and others on 26-2-1988 and were tried for the said offence in S.C. No.42/89 on the file of the Court of the Sessions Judge, Ongole. They were acquitted in the trial Court but the State preferred Criminal Appeal No.256 of 1991 and the order of acquittal has been set aside and Respondent No.4 and others have been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment by a judgment of a Division Bench dated 31-12-1992.

(3.) The Criminal Appeal No.462 of 1993 filed by Respondent No.4 and other accused before the Supreme Court is pending. Their bail applications were rejected twice by the Supreme Court. While so, Respondent No.4 and other accused are seen in the village from February, 1995 onwards and on enquiry the petitioner came to know that Respondent No. 1 granted parole for a period of one month in G.O.Rt.No.244, Home (Prisons-C) Department, dated 1-2-1995 and the same is being extended from time to time. It is asserted that the order of the State Government, releasing a life convict on parole, is without jurisdiction. Even otherwise parole can be granted only for a maximum period of three months under parole rules, but the State Government has extended the orders beyond three months and hence it is illegal. It is also her case that Respondent No.4 is a supporter of Telugu Desam Party and he was elected as President of Mandal Praja Parishad on Telugu Desam Party ticket in the elections held in 1987. As the party is in power in the State, Respondent No.4 and others are able to continue on parole. It is finally stated that she apprehended danger to her life and property and hence she filed this writ petition seeking a declaration as stated above and to direct the authorities to arrest Respondent No.4 and put him in jail.