W.P.(Crl).No.382/2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 11TH JYAISHTA, 1944
WP(CRL.) NO. 382 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
AISHABEEVI.P.K.,
AGED 72 YEARS,
W/O.LATE. M. MOHAMMAD SHERIF, SHALIMAR MANZIL, DOCTERS
GARDEN ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR PERUMBAIKKADU VILLAGE,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN- 686 008.
BY ADVS.
T.U.SUJITH KUMAR
P.S.SYAMKUTTAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN- 695 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS & CORRECTIONAL SERVICES,
PRISONS HEADQUARTERS, POOJAPPURA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 012.
3 THE SUPERINTENDENT,
CENTRAL PRISON AND CORRECTIONAL HOME,
PALLIKKUNNU, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 004.
Adv.NIMA JACOB- GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(Crl).No.382/2022 2
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed by the mother of one Faizal (Convict No.341/18) who is undergoing imprisonment in Central Prison and Correctional Home, Pallikkunnu, Kannur. The challenge that has been raised in this writ petition is against Ext.P5 order passed by the 2nd respondent by which the leave granted to him for a period of 90 days has been canceled.
2. Facts which led to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:
The son of the petitioner was found guilty by the Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha in S.C.No.418/2008 and sentenced him for life imprisonment. He is under detention from 2012 onwards. As per Ext.P1 order dated 18.05.2021, son of the petitioner was granted leave for a period of 90 days. Accordingly, he was released on parole. However, while so, on 31.05.2021, there was a scuffle between the son of the petitioner and his estranged wife and it resulted in registration of Crime No.1077 of 2021 of Gandhinagar Police Station alleging offence under Sections 341, W.P.(Crl).No.382/2022 3 323, 294(b) and 506 IPC. In connection with the same, he was arrested by the police and later released on bail. Consequent to the same, the parole granted to the son of the petitioner was canceled by the 2nd respondent as per Ext.P5, by invoking powers under Rule 412 of Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services Management Rules. This writ petition is filed challenging the aforesaid order.
3. Heard both sides.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that, Ext.P5 order was passed without taking into account the report of the District Probation Officer, as evidenced by Ext.P4. It is pointed out that, from the aforesaid report it is discernible that, the petitioner had several disputes with his estranged wife and the petitioner was falsely implicated in the same. I have carefully gone through the contents of Ext.P4. It is discernible there from that the incident which resulted in registration of crime against the petitioner while he was on parole has occurred when the de facto complainant came to the residence of the son of the petitioner and it resulted in a scuffle between them. The aforesaid report would further reveal the conduct of the estranged wife of the son of the W.P.(Crl).No.382/2022 4 petitioner. It is discernible that, right from the inception, the estranged wife of the son of the petitioner used to sent complaints after complaints against him, even while he was undergoing imprisonment. It is also categorically reported by the Probation Officer that she was always filing complaints with the intention to cancel the parole of the son of the petitioner and the opinion expressed by the Probation Officer was to the effect that the parole granted to the petitioner need not be canceled.
5. However, on going through Ext.P5 order passed by the 2 nd respondent, the observations and recommendations contained in Ext.P4 is not seen taken into consideration. I am of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the report of the Probation Officer and the contents thereof was a relevant document to be taken into consideration. It is also a fact to be considered at this juncture that the son of the petitioner has already completed almost ten years of imprisonment which represents substantial portion of his term of imprisonment. In such circumstances, I am of the view that Ext.P5 requires re-consideration.
Accordingly, this Writ petition is disposed of by setting aside W.P.(Crl).No.382/2022 5 Ext.P5 and also directing the 2 nd respondent to re-consider the same with specific reference to the contents of Ext.P4 report. If the 2 nd respondent finds that the son of the petitioner is eligible for leave, he shall be granted the benefit thereof for the remaining period of leave granted as per Ext.P1. This exercise shall be completed by the 2nd respondent within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
JUDGE DG/2.6.22 W.P.(Crl).No.382/2022 6 APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 382/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.05.2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 01.06.2021 IN CRIME NO. 1077/2021 OF THE GANDHI NAGAR POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
Exhibit P3 : A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 09.06.2021 IN CRIME NO. 1168/2021 OF THE GANDHI NAGAR POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT REGISTERED UNDER SECTIONS 341, 323, 506 R/ W 34 IPC AND SECTION 75 OF THE JJ ACT 2015.
Exhibit P4 A TRUE OF THE REPORT OF THE DISTRICT PROBATION OFFICER KOTTAYAM.
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.06.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.