Point of Law : Sec. 73 of Kerala Prisons & Correctional Services (Management) Act, 2010 deals with release on parole of convicted prisoners.

JUDGMENT :

Alexander Thomas, J.

“3. ……. Punitive therapeutics must be more enlightened than the blind strategy of prison severity where all that happens is sex-starvation, brutalisation, criminal companionship, versatile vices through bio-enviromnental pollution, dehumanised cell drill under “zoological conditions” and emergence, at the time of release, of an embittered enemy of society and its values with an indelible stigma as convict stamped on him — a potentially good person “successfully” processed into a hardened delinquent, thanks to the penal illiteracy of the Prison System. The Court must restore the man”

V R Krishna Iyer in Phul Singh v. State of Haryana [(1979) 4 SCC 413: AIR 1980 SC 249]

1. The prayers in the aforecaptioned Writ Petition (Criminal), W.P.(Crl).No. 188/2022 are as follows:

"i. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 2nd Respondent to grant parole of fifteen days to the husband of the petitioner (Sibi – Convict No.4044), who is undergoing incarceration at Central Prison and Correctional Home Viyyur, in accordance withe law;

ii. To grant any such other and further relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, so as to meet the ends of justice."

2. The prayers in the afore captioned Writ Petition (Criminal), W.P.(Crl).No. 236/2022 are as follows:

"i) To call for records pertaining to exhibit P4 order and quash the same by issuing a writ of Certiorari.

ii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to reconsider the Exhibit P3 application for parole to the husband of the petitioner, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

iii) To issue any other writ or direction appropriate in the circumstances of this case."

3. Heard Sri.Ajeesh K.Sasi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C).No. 188/2022, Sri.K.R.Vinod, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C).No. 236/2022 and Sri.Asok M.Cherian, learned Addl. Advocate General instructed and assisted by Smt.Sabeena P. Ismail, learned Prosecutor appearing for the respondents in these two cases.

4. After hearing both sides, a Division Bench of this Court has already passed a detailed common order on 7.4.2022 in these two cases, whereby the relief of leave/parole was granted to the sole petitioners in these two cases and certain other observations were also made by this Court for considering the impact of certain provisions in the Prisons' Rules concerned. We are now told by both sides that the benefit of the interim order of granting parole/ leave to the two convicts concerned has already been given by the respondents and the same has already been worked out.

5. In para No.9 on pages 10 and 11 of the abovesaid order dated 7.4.2022 this Court had specifically ordered that the convicts concerned, who are the relatives of the petitioners, shall be released on parole on execution of the requisite bond and after furnishing two solvent sureties and with certain other conditions and the release on parole was ordered to be for a period of one month. As the convicts have already been released on parole, in compliance with the abovesaid order dated 7.4.2022, and as the said one month period is already over, it is ordered, in the interest of justice, that the directions issued by this Court, for grant of parole/leave as above, will stand approved in this judgment as well. In case the convicts concerned have any further grievances, regarding grant of leave/parole, in future, it is for them to seek such benefit in accordance with the rules and the norms. Therefore, no further orders and directions are required, as regards the main prayers made in these W.P.(Crl)s., in the matter of grant of parole/leave to the two convicts concerned. However, we have to deal with certain other issues regarding the impact of certain provisions of t