Back
2015 Supreme(J&K) 152
JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT AT SRINAGAR
Bansi Lal Bhat, J.
Mohd. Amin Dar - Appellant
Versus
State of J&K and Ors. - Resopndent
OWP Nos. 1662 and 1744 of 2014
Decided On : 13-03-2015
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Parole and Probation
Headnote
Parole - Extension of Parole - Jammu & Kashmir Jail Manual, Section 52.30, 52.23, 52.24, 52.37 - The court discussed the provisions of the Jammu & Kashmir Jail Manual related to parole, emergency release, and extension of release period. It highlighted the entitlement of a prisoner to apply for extension before the expiry of the period of emergency release and the errors made by the authorities in rejecting the extension of parole period. The court quashed the impugned order and directed reconsideration of the petitioner's emergency release on fresh parole on health grounds.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, convicted under Section 302 RPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, sought extension of his parole due to deteriorating health conditions. After overstaying his release, he approached the court for directing the authorities to grant an extension in his period of parole.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's case was regulated by the provisions of the Jammu & Kashmir Jail Manual, and he was entitled to apply for extension before the expiry of the period of emergency release. The court held that the authorities erred in rejecting the extension of the parole period and quashed the impugned order.
Issues: The main issue was the petitioner's request for extension of his parole period due to deteriorating health conditions and the authorities' rejection of the same based on the Jammu & Kashmir Jail Manual provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Jammu & Kashmir Jail Manual provisions, specifically Section 52.30, 52.23, 52.24, and 52.37, which highlighted the entitlement of the petitioner to apply for extension before the expiry of the period of emergency release and the errors made by the authorities in rejecting the extension of parole period.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned order and directed the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for grant of parole in the same manner and on the same analogy as it was considered at the time of the grant of his first parole, notwithstanding the impugned order dated 03.12.2014.
For the Appellant :M.A. Qayoom, Advocate
For the Respondents: R.A. Khan, A.A.G.
Bansi Lal Bhat, J.:-
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed two writ petitions for passing appropriate directions. First of all, I would like to deal with the writ petition bearing OWP No. 1662/2014. The brief material facts of the case are that the petitioner was convicted under Section 302 RPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ramban, and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 RPC and 7 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 27 of the Arms Act in terms of judgment dated 20.08.2002. It is stated that this Court vide judgment dated 02.03.2011 acquitted the petitioner under Section 27 of the Arms Act, but upheld his conviction and sentence under Section 302 RPC. It is further stated that while the petitioner was serving the sentence, he got seriously ill and is receiving treatment in the various Government Hospitals of the State for various types of ailments he is suffering. It is further stated that after evaluating the petitioner in the Cardiology Department of SKIMS, he was declared as a case of Old IWMI, a triple vessel disease. The case of the petitioner is that due to the ailment he is suffering, he requested the respondents to release him on parole. His case was referred to the Superintendent of Police, Ramban, which is his actual place of lodgment, who in turn informed the respondent No. 4, the Superintendent, Central Jail, Srinagar, where he is presently lodged that his office shall have no objection if the petitioner is released on the eve of Independence Day of 2014. It is contended that after getting necessary inputs from respondents 3 to 5, respondent No. 2, the Director General of Prisons, Jammu & Kashmir, authorized temporary release of the petitioner from custody in terms of order dated 04.10.2014 for a period of six weeks subject to certain conditions in the order itself.
2. It appears that pursuant to order dated 04.10.2014, the petitioner was released by respondent No. 4 on 16.10.2014, with a direction to the petitioner to surrender back in the Central Jail, Srinagar. It is stated that thereafter the petitioner went to the SKIMS Hospital, Srinagar, and got himself examined. He has appended a photocopy of the opinion of the doctor concerned which reveals that since the petitioner suffers from heart disease, therefore, he should remain in homely atmosphere as there are chances of second impact in stressful situation. It is contended that in view of this situation, the petitioner submitted an application on 18.11.2014 to the respondent No. 2 requesting therein to extend his period of parole which was expiring on 28.11.2014 for some more months, so as to enable him to have day today checkups done in SKIMS Hospital, Srinagar.
3. Having had no response from the respondents on the application of the petitioner, he was under these circumstances left with no option but to seek indulgence of this Court for directing the respondents to grant extension in his period of parole.
4. Upon consideration of the matter, one of the coordinate Benches of this Court, directed the respondent No. 2 to consider the grant in extension of parole of the petitioner on the strength of the pleas taken in the representation and pass orders within ten days and the matter was directed to be listed on 08th December, 2014; till then it was provided that the petitioner shall not surrender. It is seen from the record that the respondent No. 2 after considering the matter in the light of the representation made by the petitioner read with the ad interim direction passed by this Court in the aforementioned writ petition, passed an Order No. 149 of 2014 dated 03.12.2014, which has the effect of rejecting the case of the petitioner for extension of the period of parole.
5. It is this order which is impugned in the second writ petition bearing OWP No. 1744/2014. Now so far as the first writ petition bearing OWP No. 1662/2014 is concerned, it has become infructuous. It shall
