The Karnataka High Court Bench comprising Justice Krishna S Dixit in the matter of Rashi Kumara v. The Director General Of Police Prisons & Correctional Services refused to extend the parole leave of a life convict on the ground of contracting Covid 19 Virus.
Background of the Case
Petitioner was convicted for the offences punishable u/s 302,120B, 324, 341, 427 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Learned 7th Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bangalore, the petitioner who was serving the sentence was released on parole on 19.03.2021 in terms of Standing Orders of Respondent No.1-Director General of Police, Prisons & Correctional Services and by Respondent No.2-Chief Superintendent of Central Prison.
Petitioner was released on parole vide order dated 18.03.2021 for a period of 30 days w.e.f from 7.7.2021 to 06.08.2021; he got an extension of the parole for the same period vide order dated 05.08.2021; similarly, he secured a second extension to vide order dated 31.08.2021 for another spell of 30 days which came to an end on 05.10.2021.
Petitioner made a representation dated 28.09.2021 for extension of parole for another 60 days on the ground of COVID related health issues in support of which he has produced some feeble material; the same was not considered, he knocked at the doors of the Writ Court.
Learned AGA accepted notice for the respondents opposed to the Writ Petition contending that there was absolutely no case for the Petitioner to be paroled any further; he also pointed out that the extension of parole could defeat the very purpose of having the convicts to serve the sentence.
Order of the Court
Court after hearing the Parties declined indulgence in the matter for the following grounds:
It is a well-settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that release of a convict on parole or furlough cannot be sought as a matter of right; a convict after undergoing the awarded punishment purges the guilt; the society and the victims of the offence have a strong justifiable expectation that the offender should serve the full sentence; releasing the life convicts on parole or furlough intermittently offends the sense of Justice and that shakes the confidence of right-thinking members of the public in the administration of Criminal Justice System; this was not a happy thing to happen in a civil society.
The grant of intermittent parole or furlough apart from generating a sense of insecurity to the victims of the offence, would create an avoidable expectation (although not legitimate) amongst the inmates of the gaol; that may graduate to a kind of right to parole on the principle of parity which again is detrimental to the interest of civil society; after all, parole & furlough are in the nature of an apology to the conviction & sentence.
The provisions of parole/furlough were structured on humanistic grounds for the reprieve of those lodged in gaols; the main purpose of releasing a convict on parole is to afford to him an opportunity to solve his personal and family problems and to enable him to maintain his links with the civil society; there may be cases of health grounds too; be that whatever, release on. parole/furlough cannot be claimed as a matter of right; repeated extension of parole has very many disadvantages to the administration of the criminal justice system. Petitioner has already availed the benefit of multiple paroles/extensions.
The vehement submission of counsel for the petitioner that he has been suffering from COVID-19 disease and that he needs another extension of parole for his complete recovery cannot be sustained; learned AGA is more than justified in submitting that adequate facilities avail in the jails and other Govt. hospitals for the diseased convicts who have been serving the sentence; the jails are overcrowded and therefore, case of the petitioner needs to be considered sympathetically, is too feeble a ground; no statistical data is produced for maintaining such a ground; even otherwise, in a populous society like ours, there may be some over-crowding in the jail that happens inevitably; however, that is no ground for not serving the sentence.
This Writ Petition being devoid of merits was rejected and ordered that petitioner shall report back to the jail on or before 11.10.2021, 3.30 pm at the latest, failing which, he shall be apprehended and driven to the jail.
Case Details
Case Title: Rashi Kumara v. The Director General Of Police Prisons & Correctional Services
Bench: Justice Krishna S Dixit
Picture Source :
