Aishabeevi.P.K vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 6083 Ker

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,

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

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

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

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.