W.P. (C) No. 34932 of 2016. Case: Loucy Babu Vs Director General of Prisons and Correctional Service and Ors.. High Court of Kerala (India)
| Case Number | W.P. (C) No. 34932 of 2016 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: M.T. Sureshkumar and P. Maya, Advs. and For Respondents: Suman Chakravarthy, Senior Government Pleader |
| Judges | Sunil Thomas, J. |
| Issue | Constitution Of India - Articles 136, 142, 226, 32; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 302, 376(2)(g), 73; Kerala Prisons And Correctional Services (management) Act, 2010 - Sections 2(xxxi), 73; Maintenance Of Internal Security Act, 1971 - Section 15 |
| Citation | 2017 (1) KLT 412 |
| Judgement Date | December 20, 2016 |
| Court | High Court of Kerala (India) |
Judgment:
Sunil Thomas, J.
-
The 65 year old mother of a life convict undergoing imprisonment in women's prison for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC along with other offences, has approached this Court seeking parole for her daughter. The daughter of the petitioner was sentenced for life imprisonment on 11/06/2010 in SC No. 130/2010. Petitioner claim that she is suffering from various ailments including spinal disc problem and suffering from acute joint pain. She had to undergo replacement of both her knee joints and she is struggling to take care of herself. Compelled by the circumstances, the grand daughter, who is studying in 6th standard, is now accommodated in the school hostel. The grievance of the petitioner is that the daughter had requested for parole which was rejected by the second respondent on extraneous considerations. Hence, the petitioner submitted Ext. P3 representation requesting to grant her ordinary parole or to inform the reason why her daughter's request was declined. By Ext. P4 communication she was informed that daughter had exhausted the ordinary parole due to her and hence her request could not be acceded to. Hence, petitioner sought quashing of Ext. P4 and directing respondents to grant parole to the daughter of the petitioner for a period of three months by allowing Ext. P3 application.
-
Facts discernible from the available records show that the daughter of the petitioner had initially availed parole for 15 days during the calender year. Later when parole was sought, it was denied by the jail authorities on the ground that model code of conduct issued by the Election Commission had interdicted granting of parole during the relevant time. Thereafter, she sought suspension of sentence. A Division Bench of this Court by order dated 26/04/2016, instead of suspending the sentence granted parole for one month. The necessity that was urged before the Division Bench was that the girl child of the convict required admission in a school and the presence of the mother was imperatively essential, when there were no other immediate family members to take care of the child. The Division Bench granted parole for a period of one month taking into consideration the peculiar circumstances of the case. Thereafter, she preferred WP (C) No. 19100/2016 before this Court seeking extension of parole on the ground that her attempt to obtain admission to the child in a school failed and hence, she needed 15 more days parole, to procure admission for the child in any other school. She had earlier preferred an application before the Superintendent of women's jail seeking extension of parole, which was declined. Hence, she sought appropriate direction in the writ petition. Considering the special circumstances, the writ petition was disposed...
To continue reading
Request your trial