Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
Allen Skariah Thomas @ Allen Thomas @ Cyril S/o Thomas M.G. – Petitioner
Versus
The Chief Secretary to Government of Kerala – Respondent
W.P. (Crl.) No. 736 of 2023
Decided On : 24-07-2024
PRISON LEAVE - ORDINARY LEAVE GRANT - Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Act, 2010, Section 78; Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Rules, 2014, Rule 397, Rule 469 - The court discussed the provisions of the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Act, 2010, particularly Section 78, which allows for the grant of leave to well-behaved prisoners, and the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Rules, 2014, specifically Rule 397, which outlines eligibility for leave. The court emphasized that the denial of leave based on vague police reports, without specific adverse instances, is not lawful. The court highlighted the importance of rehabilitation and the need for objective evaluation of a prisoner's behavior, ultimately concluding that the petitioner was entitled to ordinary leave due to arbitrary denial by authorities.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, convicted of patricide and sentenced to life imprisonment, sought ordinary prison leave after serving over six years without any lawful reasons for denial. He claimed that his applications were not considered due to vested interests and unfavorable police reports that lacked specificity.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the police reports used to deny leave were vague and not based on specific incidents. The Probation Officer's detailed report recommended leave, highlighting the petitioner's good behavior and family support, which was ignored by the authorities. The court concluded that the denial of leave was arbitrary and discriminatory.
Issues: Whether the denial of ordinary leave to the petitioner was lawful and justified based on the provided police reports and the petitioner's behavior during imprisonment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while eligibility for leave is governed by the rules, the authority must not deny leave arbitrarily. The terms 'good behavior' and 'well-behaved' must be evaluated objectively, and vague police reports cannot serve as a valid basis for denial of statutory rights.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, directing the authorities to grant ordinary leave to the petitioner within two weeks, recognizing the arbitrary treatment he faced in the denial of his leave applications.
JUDGMENT :
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
1. Petitioner seeks directions for the grant of ordinary prison leave apart from other consequential directions. Petitioner has also sought to quash rule 407 of the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Rules, 2014 (for short 'the Rules').
2. Petitioner was convicted for the offence of patricide and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment by judgement dated 08.05.2018 in S.C. No. 350 of 2013 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-IV, Pathanamthitta. He has already undergone more than six years of imprisonment and has not been granted ordinary leave till date. Petitioner claims that though there was no negative conduct on his part during the period he was on pre-trial bail from 12.10.2011 till the date of judgement. He is being denied ordinary leave without any lawful reasons. He alleges that leave has been denied due to certain vested interests and his application for leave is not even being placed before the Advisory Board for consideration. Petitioner further alleges that the District Probation Officer had even recommended the grant of ordinary leave to him, while the police reports are unfavourable without any reason.
3. A statement has been filed on behalf of the fifth respondent-Superintendent of Central Prison stating that as on 24.06.2024, petitioner has undergone 6 years, 4 months and 6 days of imprisonment including the remand period. The fifth respondent pleads that under section 78 of Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Act, 2010 (for short 'the Act') leave can be granted only to well-behaved, eligible convicted prisoners as incentive for good behaviour and responsiveness to correctional treatment. It is alleged that the petitioner, despite having been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, has been abstaining from prison jobs arbitrarily without any reasonable excuse. It is further stated that the petitioner engages in prison jobs intermittently according to his own whims and fancies, that too till September 2022 and thereafter he has been completely abstaining from prison jobs in contravention of law and that such abstention itself is a prison offence as per section 82(15) of the Act. It is further alleged that every petition for leave has to be accompanied by a report from the Station House Officer of the police station concerned regarding the repercussions of the law and order situation if the convict is released on leave, especially about his own safety and that of the others and the possibility of any prisoner absconding also has to be reckoned.
4. According to the fifth respondent, though the District Probation Officer had recommended the grant of ordinary leave to the petitioner as per Ext.R5(a), the District Police Chief had by letter dated 28.05.2021 informed that there is a possibility of conflict with the family members and relatives of the victim and also that there is a possibility of him being involved in other criminal cases and also that he may abscond, if released on leave. It is further stated that as per rule 469 of the Rules, the Jail Advisory Board constituted under the chairmanship of the Director General of Prisons is empowered to consider the cases of prisoners who are ineligible for leave due to unfavourable police reports for more than one instance but are otherwise eligible as per the provisions of rule 397 of the Rules and that the Jail Advisory Board will consider the cases and make relevant or necessary recommendations to the Government regarding the grant of ordinary leave. The fifth respondent further averred that the case of the petitioner was placed before the Prison Advisory Board on 16.12.2022 and on 29.06.2023 which refused to recommend grant of leave to him. Later, petitioner’s application was placed for consideration before the Leave Review Committee on 18.10.2023 and they too did not recommend his case. On 02.02.2024, petitioner's case was again placed before the Prison Advisory Board and they
AI
The court established that the denial of ordinary leave to a prisoner must be based on specific, objective criteria rather than vague assertions, and that arbitrary denial undermines the rehabilitati....
An eligible convict is entitled to be granted leave for 60 days in a year as per Rule 397.
As per Rule 397 of Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Rules, 2014 leave can be granted only to well-behaved, eligible and convicted prisoners.
The court established that an adverse police report does not alone justify the denial of ordinary leave for prisoners eligible under prison management rules.
The Superintendent of Prisons cannot revoke a Government order granting leave based on subsequent events, as the order must be implemented as per prior recommendations.
Past abscondance does not impose absolute bar on ordinary leave; authorities must exercise discretion balancing prisoner rights and state interests.
Prisoners' eligibility for ordinary leave under reformative intent, despite police apprehensions about law and order.
A prisoner's entitlement to ordinary leave for rehabilitation should not be denied based solely on a vague apprehension of absconding by police authorities, especially when the prisoner's conduct has....
The duty of the Probation Officer to provide sufficient reasons for not recommending the grant of leave to a convict prisoner, and the consequences of a non-speaking order.
The Court emphasized that rejection of leave must be based on substantial evidence and previous recommendations must be considered.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
