JUDGMENT

Petitioner is the wife of one Ansar Ahammed, who is convict No.53/2022 at Central Prison, Thavanoor. He was accused No.3 in S.C.No.630/2020 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court, Ottappalam, for the offences including Sections 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. The Trial Court, by judgment dated 18.01.2022, found the petitioner’s husband guilty and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. It is alleged that he was arrested on 24.06.2020 and was released on bail on 17.02.2021, and thereafter has been undergoing conviction since 18.01.2022. Though he was eligible for grant of ordinary leave, his application dated 05.10.2023 was rejected by Ext.P4 order dated 20.11.2023, relying upon the police report. In the report of the police it was stated that there may be a threat to law and order if petitioner’s husband is released, since, the opposition group may target him for revenge and therefore, he ought not to be released on ordinary leave.

3. Smt. Saipooja, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the report of the District Probation OfÏcer though recorded in Ext.P4 was not effectively considered by the 2nd respondent while issuing Ext.P4. It is also stated that the possibility of revenge by the opposition is only an apprehension without any basis and no material has been mentioned in the police report to assume that there would be a threat to the convict if released on ordinary parole. The learned counsel further asserted that the right to be considered for ordinary prole is available to all convicts and the same cannot be defeated by assumptions or surmises, especially, in the light of the probation ofÏcer’s report.

4. Sri. C.S.Hrithwik, the learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand contended that while issuing Ext.4 order all the aspects have been considered and there is no perversity in the same. It is also pointed out that the convict can move a fresh application for ordinary parole and the same can be considered in accordance with law.

5. On a perusal of Ext.P4, it is noticed that though the District Probation OfÏcer’s report has been referred to, no serious consideration to the observations by the said ofÏcer has been carried out. The convict was on bail from 17.02.2021 till 18.01.2022, during which period there was not even a single incident of any attack or revenge by the alleged opponents. Therefore, it is evident that the probation ofÏcer’s report was not given due weightage and instead police report which is based practically on an assumption that there may be a chance of a law and order situation if the opposition group takes revenge on the convict is given more importance. The said report of the police is based on a lot of ‘if’s and ‘but’s. Legally such assumptions based on surmises cannot take the place of legally tenable reasons to deny an ordinary parole to a convict who has already become eligible to be released for ordinary parole by continuing incarceration for the period specified therein.

6. In view of the above, this Court is satisfied that, Ext.P4 is based on irrelevant considerations and since relevant factors have not been considered, the said order is required to be set aside.

7. Accordingly, I set aside Ext.P4 and direct the 2nd respondent to reconsider the application for grant of ordinary parole in the light of the observations made above.

Writ petition is allowed as above.

Sd/-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE

Jka/03.01.24.

APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 1221/2023 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED

18.01.2022 IN SC NO. 630/2020 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, OTTAPPALAM.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED

03.03.2023 IN WP (CRL) NO.1238/2022 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.10.2023 IN WP(CRL).1024/2023 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 DATED 20.11.2023 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED

16.11.2023 ISSUED FROM EMS HOSPITAL PERINTHALMANNA.

E