Back
2018 Supreme(Ker) 14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
B. KEMAL PASHA, J.
A. Shoukath Ali - Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala to be Represented by Secretary, Home Department & Others - Respondents
WP(C) No. 38980 of 2017
Decided On : 16-01-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : K.S. Madhusoodanan, M.M. Vinod Kumar, P.K. Rakesh Kumar, K.S. Mizver, S. Jessin
For the Respondents: P. Narayanan
Headnote:Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Act 2010 (Kerala), Ss. 73 & 78 -Constitution defines the articles 21 and 14 as the persons undergoing sentence is not excluded or discriminated as that the persons held the sentence is not given the ordinary leave when the other persons in the same are held with the denial of the parole is held violative as per Article 21 an d14 of the constitution.
1. Petitioner's two sons namely, Jafarudheen (C. No.9879) and Muhammed Ameer(C. No.1109) are undergoing sentence at the Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram in S.C.No.1322/2004 of the Sessions Court, Kollam.
2. According to the petitioner, the other accused in the same case who are undergoing sentence are being given regular leave by way of ordinary parole, and even then the sons of the petitioner are being discriminated and they are not being given parole by assigning a reason that the police report is adverse to them. It seems that the police have reported that in case of granting of parole, there is every possibility of attack on them by the rival parties.
3. The petitioner has produced the copy of the letter issued by the MLA of Punalur Constituent Assembly, who is presently the Forest Minister, recommending for parole by stating that there is no chance of any untoward incident in case of granting parole to them. Similar is the versions given by the Ward Member and the Block Panchayat Member. Virtually speaking, those documents cannot be relied on for deciding the question of parole.
4. At the same time, it seems that five of the other accused persons in the same case, who are undergoing sentence, are being given ordinary leave regularly as is evident from paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit. When they are being given parole, the denial of parole to the sons of the petitioner is nothing but discrimination. The parole is being denied on the ground that there is chance of an attack on the sons of the petitioner in case of releasing them on parole. Similar theory is applicable in the case of the other five accused persons, who are being given regular leave, also. Even then they are being given parole. Any attack on them has not been so far reported. Matters being so, the denial of parole to the sons of the petitioner is nothing but violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
5. The Director General(Prisons) shall grant ordinary parole to the sons of the petitioner also, when the same facility is being enjoyed by the other five accused persons who are undergoing sentence in the very same case.
In the result, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the Director General(Prisons) to grant ordinary parole to the sons of the petitioner namely, Jafarudheen (C. No.9879) and Muhammed Ameer (C. No.1109), who are undergoing sentence at the Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram in S.C.No.1322/2004 of the Sessions Court, Kollam.
