Kerala High Court
Basil K.Babu vs State Of Kerala on 17 January, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 27TH POUSHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 21950 OF 2020
PETITIONER/S:
1 BASIL K.BABU
AGED 25 YEARS
S/O.BABU, KARIKKATTIL HOUSE, THIRUVANIYOOR P.O.,
PUTHENCRUZ VIA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, C.NO.3940.
2 BINU,
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O.THANKACHAN, PADINJAREYIL HOUSE, AANNAKKALLU DESOM,
PUZHAPAKANDAM P.O., NEDUMKANDAM P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT,
C.NO.5318.
3 AMAL RAJ,
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O.MURALIDHARAN, ALAKERY HOUSE, UDYOGAMANDAL P.O., ELOOR
NORTH, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, C.NO.9502.
4 SURESH,
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O.RAGHAVAN, THAYYIL HOUSE, CHALYAR KADAV DESOM,
KODANNUR VILLAGE, CHERPP P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT,
C.NO.3032.
5 JAYAN,
AGED 48 YEARS,S/O.PRABHAKARAN, VINIKKAL HOUSE,
THANNASSERY P.O., SHANTI ROAD, KUTTAPUR P.S.,
IRINJALAKKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, C.NO.3308.
6 PRADEEP @ KANNAN,
AGED 35 YEARS,S/O.BALAN, KONAKKATTIL HOUSE, VILAGATHODU,
PORATHISSERY P.O., IRINJALAKUDA P.S., THRISSUR DISTRICT,
C.NO.3418.
7 BABU,
AGED 43 YEARS,S/O.SANKARAN, KOTTAPARAMBATH HOUSE, VELLANI
P.O., KARALAM VILLAGE, KOTTUR P.S, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
C.NO.3416.
W.P(C).21950/2020 2
8 ANEESH,
AGED 33 YEARS,S/O.CHATHU, KATTUPURATH HOUSE, LARALAM
P.O., KARALAM VILLAGE, KATTUR P.S., PUTTATHRA DESOM, NEAR
PITC MUKUNDAPURAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT, C NO.3417.
9 AJITH KUMAR,
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O.JANARDHANAN, ROHINI MANDIRAM, TKMC P.O., KARIKODE
KOLLAM, C.NO.2608, OPEN PRISON, NEDUKKALTHERI, KOOTOOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (CONVICT NO.3573, CENTRAL PRISON AND
CORRECTION HOME TRIVANDRUM).
BY ADV RAJIT
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, REPRESENTED BY THE HOME
SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 KERALA PRISON AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES,
REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PRISON AND
CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF PRISON, POOJAPURA,
THIRUVANANTHAUPRAM-695012.
3 SUPERINTENDENT,
CENTRAL PRISON AND CORRECTION HOME, VIYYUR, THRISSUR-
680010.
4 SUPERINTENDENT,
CENTRAL CORRECTION HOME, TRIVANDRUM-695021.
BY SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SENIOR GOVT.PLEADER
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.PP - SMT. SREEJA V., PP -SRI. M.C.ASHI
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON
7.01.2022, THE COURT ON 17.01.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(C).21950/2020 3
JUDGMENT
Petitioners are convicts undergoing imprisonment, from three years to
life imprisonment, in different prisons. Petitioners 1 to 8 are undergoing
imprisonment in Viyyur Central Prison and Correctional Home, Thrissur.
The 9th petitioner is undergoing imprisonment in Central Prison,
Thiruvananthapuram. They were released on bail on different periods
granting parole. Exts.P3 to P10 are the release orders in respect of petitioners
1 to 8 whereas the 9th petitioner was released on parole as per
Ext.P11/Annexure-R2(c) order. By Exts.P12 and P13 orders different
categories of prisoners were granted extension of time for reporting back.
This writ petition was filed on 14/10/2021, when the pandemic was at peak
time, seeking the following reliefs:
a) Call for the records leading upto Ext.P15 and quash Ext.P15
order, by issuance of a writ of certiorari, or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction;
b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction commanding the 1st respondent to extend the period of
parole granted to the petitioners in terms of Exts.P12 and P13
orders issued by the respondents;
c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction commanding the 4th respondent to grand the benefits of
Exts.P12 and P13 orders to the petitioners and permit the
petitioners to report back to prison within 3 days from
30.10.2020;
d) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order
or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to ensure that unless
proper quarantine mechanisms are not in place, the petitioners
already released on parole, cannot be summoned back.
2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the
learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
3. When the matter was taken up for final hearing, it was submitted
that the case against the petitioners 1 to 8 has become infructuous and no
relief is sought in their favour. Similarly, the 9 th petitioner had reported back
on 03/11/2020 but he challenges Ext.P15 order singling him out from the
category of convicts released by the respondents.
4. It is evident from the records produced by the petitioners that
three categories of prisoners were reckoned by the Government. During the
pandemic, 265 prisoners were released as part of easing overcrowding in
prisons as the first batch. Thereafter 589 prisoners were released granting
parole and the third batch consisted of 192 prisoners. In Ext.P12 order dated
14/08/2020, the Government granted extended time for reporting back for
the first batch within three days after 30/09/2020, the second batch within
three days after 15/10/2020 and the third batch within three days after
30/10/2020. Later, by Ext.P13 order dated 01/10/2020 the respective dates
were extended till 31/10/2020, 15/11/2020 and 30/11/2020 respectively. It is
the common case that the 9th petitioner was released on parole under
Ext.P11/Annexure-R2(c) order for 30 days with a direction to report back on
24/08/2020. Claiming benefit of Exts.P12 and P13 orders he moved this
Court with W.P(C) No.20616/2020 along with another person. In Ext.P14
judgment this Court observed that in view of the Government Order
extending the time limit for surrender, the direction requiring the second
petitioner to surrender within three days from 30/09/2020 needs
reconsideration. It was also added that if he falls under any of the three
categories, he should be granted the benefit of the Government Order. After
considering Ext.P14 judgment, by Ext.P15 order the 4th respondent held that
on the expiry of the period of 30 days he should have reported back on
24.08.2020, that Ext.P14 judgment is not applicable to him (sic). Now the
surviving question is the correctness of the Ext.P15 order passed by the 4 th
respondent.
5. In the statement filed by the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons
on behalf of respondents 2 to 4 it is stated that the 9 th petitioner is a convict
in S.C.862/2003 of the Sessions Court, Kollam for various offences under
Sections 304 Part II, 325, 201 read with 34 IPC, Sections 57(A)(ii), 55(a),
55(b) and 55(i) of the Abkari Act. The maximum sentence he is liable to
undergo is ten years. He had been in Open Prison and Correctional Home,
Nettukaltheri. But on account of some disciplinary proceedings, since he
was found using a mobile phone in the prison, his right to be released on
parole was suspended for a period of one year. On completion of that one
year, by Ext.P11/Annexure-R2(c) order he was granted parole for a period of
30 days by the 4th respondent.
6. From the fact situation itself it is clear that he does not fall in any
of the three categories stated by the parties. That means, if only his case falls
in any of the categories, he would have entitled to get the benefit of
extension of time granted in Exts.P12 and P13. That has been considered and
the 4th respondent passed the orders. Even otherwise it is a question of fact as
to whether his case falls in any of the categories. The 9 th petitioner does not
say in which category he falls. Apparently he does not fall in any of the
categories. That means, at the first blush it does not seem that he is entitled
to get the benefit of extension of time. In Ext.P14 also it was only stated that
he is entitled to get the benefit of extension of time, if he falls under any of
the three categories. After considering his case the 4 th respondent held that he
is not entitled to get the benefits of Ext.P12 or P13. That means, he is not
entitled to get the benefit of regularisation for the overstay.
7. The learned counsel complained that his case automatically falls
in the categories of Ext.P13, discrimination has been meted out to him, etc.
As noticed earlier, he was not released on parole as part of the general policy
of easing the overcrowding of prisons. Before passing
Ext.P11/Annexure-R2(c), due to the pendency of the disciplinary
proceedings he could not have been granted parole for one year. In that case
he ought to have reported back on 24/08/2020. The petitioner is not entitled
to get any relief and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. Dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/-
K.HARIPAL
JUDGE
okb/13.1.22
//True copy// P.S. to Judge
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21950/2020
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.03.2020
ISSUED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN SUO
MOTU WRIT PETITION(C)NO.1/2020.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN
G.O(RT)NO.970/2020/HOME DATED 25.03.2020
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ABOVE GATE PASS IN RESPECT
OF THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ABOVE GATE PASS IN RESPECT
OF THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ABOVE GATE PASS IN RESPECT
OF THE 3RD PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ABOVE GATE PASS IN RESPECT
OF THE 4TH PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ABOVE GATE PASS IN RESPECT
OF THE 5TH PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ABOVE GATE PASS IN RESPECT
OF THE 6TH PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE ABOVE GATE PASS IN RESPECT
OF THE 7TH PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE ABOVE GATE PASS IN RESPECT
OF THE 8TH PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE ABOVE GATE PASS IN RESPECT
OF THE 9TH PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE ABOVE ORDER NO.1790/2020
DATED 14.08.2020.
EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE ABOVE ORDER NO.2170/2020
DATED 01.10.2020.
EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE ABOVE ORDER DATED
05.10.2020 IN W.P.C.NO.20616/2020.
EXHIBIT P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENTS TO THE 9TH PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P16 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
13.10.2020.
EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(RT)
NO.2008/2020/HOME DATED 16.09.2020.
