Abhishek K.A @ Bhanu vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 12061 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

     FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 26TH CHAITHRA, 1943

                       WP(C).No.9170 OF 2021(U)


PETITIONER:

               ABHISHEK K.A @ BHANU,
               AGED 27 YEARS,
               HIGH SECURITY PRISON, VIYYUR,
               THRISSUR, KERALA-680 010.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
               SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY
               KUM.THULASI K. RAJ
               SMT.MAITREYI SACHIDANANDA HEGDE

RESPONDENTS:

      1        STATE OF KERALA
               REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KERALA PRISONS AND
               CORRECTIONAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

      2        DIG OF PRISONS,
               CENTRAL ZONE, VIYYUR, THRISSUR-680 010.

      3        SUPERINTENDENT,
               HIGH SECURITY PRISON, VIYYUR, THRISSUR-680 010.


               SMT DIVYA C BALAN GP

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.9170 OF 2021(U)               2




                                 JUDGMENT

The petitioner seeks for a direction for an

emergency parole for 45 days. It is submitted that

he had filed Ext. P1 parole request before the

first respondent along with a copy to the 3 rd

respondent.

2. Petitioner is an accused and a convict for

the offence under Section 3(d) r/w Section 4,

Section 5(i),(l),(m) r/w Section 6, Section 11(iii)

r/w Section 12 of the Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POSCO) and under Section

377 and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code, sentenced

to undergo imprisonment for a period of 10 years

and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-.

3. According to the petitioner his mother is in

a serious medical condition which requires his

presence as a measure of support and relief for the

aged mother.

4. The Public Prosecutor on instruction submits

that 3rd respondent has not received Ext.P1 as

alleged and hence, no decision could be taken.

The learned counsel for the petitioner Adv.

Kaleeswaram Raj submits that eventhough Ext.P1 was

submitted to the 3rd respondent, petitioner is

willing to re-submit the same so as to enable a

decision to be taken.

5. The grant of parole has been incorporated

into the criminal jurisprudence of a country with

an avowed purpose. The Supreme Court had considered

the concept of parole and its purpose in the

decision in ASFAQ v. State of Rajasthan and others

[(2017) 15 SCC 55]. The Kerala Prisons and

correctional Services (Management) Act, 2014 refers

to grant of emergency parole. When an application

for grant of parole is filed by a convict it is

essential that a time bound decision is taken by

the authority concerned. Emergency parole requires

emergent decision to be taken.

6. Since there is a dispute as to lack of

receipt of the petition for grant of parole, I

direct the 3rd respondent to take a decision on

Ext.P1 representation submitted by the petitioner.

Ext.P1 produced in this writ petition treating as

the representation filed by the petitioner

requesting for parole. The aforesaid decision

shall be taken by the 3rd respondent within a period

of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of

this judgment, having regard to the statutory

presumptions and the certificates produced in this

writ petition.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE msp

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15.2.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TREATMENT CERTIFICATE DATED 26.3.2021 ISSUED BY THE DOCTOR

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE