A Habeas Corpus Petition for premature release is not maintainable when the conviction is based on a judgment passed by a competent court of jurisdiction after due trial. Premature release on health grounds must adhere to the parameters laid down under the Prison Rules.

JUDGMENT

(Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in G.O. (D) No. 1084, Home (Prison-IV) Department dated 18.09.2019 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondents to release the detenu Dasaran, Son of Sindariyappa, life Convict No. 16712, now confined in Central Prison, Vellore on premature release to secure the ends of justice.)

R. Subbiah, J.

1. The petitioner has come up with this Habeas Corpus Petition seeking to quash the order passed in G.O. (D) No. 1084, Home (Prison-IV) Department dated 18.09.2019 on the file of the first respondent and to issue a consequential direction to the respondents to release the detenu Dasaran, Son of Sindariyappa, life Convict No. 16712, now confined in Central Prison, Vellore on premature release.

2. The petitioner is the grand daughter of the detenue by name Dasaraj, who is a life convict and is now confined in the Central Prison, Vellore. According to the petitioner, her grand father is 95 years old and is suffering from age old ailments. By citing the age of the detenu and the ailment he suffers, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents seeking his premature release, but it was not considered. The petitioner therefore filed HCP No. 719 of 2019 before this Court seeking to direct the first respondent to consider the premature release of the detenue on medical grounds. However, the first respondent, without considering the bonafide request made by the petitioner, has passed an order dated 18.09.2019 rejecting the request of the petitioner. Challenging the order dated 18.09.2019 of the first respondent, the present Habeas Corpus Petition is filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Probation Officer and Jail authorities have recommended for premature release of the detenue on health grounds. Inspite of the same, the first respondent passed an order dated 18.09.2019 refusing to extend the benefit of premature release in favour of the detenue. The detenue is 95 years old and he is in the evening of his life. The first respondent, by adopting technicalities failed to considered the claim of the petitioner on humanitarian grounds. The learned counsel for the petitioner also invited the attention of this Court to para No.5 of the order, which is impugned in this Habeas Corpus Petition, wherein, the first respondent has referred to the report of the Additional Director General of Police/Inspector General of Prisons submitted on 25.07.2019 to the effect that in the event of premature release of the detenue, no problem will arise to the family of the victim and therefore, the Additional Director General of Police/ Inspector of Prisons has recommended for premature release of the detenue considering his age. Notwithstanding the above recommendation, the first respondent passed the order of rejection and refused to confer the benefit of premature release of the detenue, hence, the learned counsel prayed for allowing the Habeas Corpus Petition as prayed for.

4. Opposing the Habeas Corpus Petition, the learned Additional Advocate General would contend that the detenue was convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri in S.C. No. 193 of 2001 dated 7.03.2002. Challenging the same, the detenue has filed Criminal Appeal No. 909 of 2002 before this Court. Pending appeal, the substantial sentence of imprisonment was suspended by this Court on 30.12.2002 in Crl.M.P. No. 12774 of 2002 in C.A. No. 909 of 2002. The Criminal Appeal filed by the detenue was ultimately dismissed by this Court on 16.02.2006. Thereafter, the detenue filed SLP (Crl.) No. 7263 of 2017 before the Honourable Supreme Court of India and it was also dismissed on 04.08.2017. In the meantime, after getting the substantial sentence of imprisonment suspended by this Court on 30.12.2002, the detenue absconded and he could not be traced and