Authorities must conduct comprehensive evaluations of parole applications, considering all relevant factors, especially where favorable reports exist.

JUDGMENT

The writ petitioners are the fathers of the first and the third accused in SC No.97/2014 of the Additional Sessions Court Kasargod for offences punishable under sections 120B, 143, 402,449, 342,324,396, 302,201 read with sections 149 & 118 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, final report was laid in the above crime and the accused faced the trial. All the accused, except accused No.8 were convicted. Accused Nos.1 and 3 were found guilty for offences punishable under section120B,302 &201 IPC and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine for the offences found against them. Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence, Crl.Appeal No.40/2015 was filed before this court and the matter is pending. The appellants are in custody since 2013.

2. According to the writ petitioners, after the lock down was declared by the State Government and the central Government following the outbreak of Covid-19, Government of Kerala issued Ext.P1 notification dated 25/3/2020 enabling the second respondent, the Director General of Prisons, to grant ordinary leave to eligible prisoners in a single spell of 60 days, subject to other conditions of leave in relaxation of Rule 397(b) of the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Rules ,2014, to reduce the number of prisoners in prison. Claiming that the petitioners' children are in custody since 2013, first petitioner filed W.P.(C)No.31130/2018 for grant of parole. Subsequently, the first petitioner filed Ext.P2 petition before the Chief Minister dated 30/3/2020 seeking appropriate directions for granting parole to his son. The second petitioner also submitted identical petition, copy of which was produced as Ext.P4.

3. According to the petitioners, the above applications were forwarded by the Chief Minister's cell to the Additional Secretary,Home Department, and nothing was heard thereafter. According to the petitioners, the competent authority to take a decision on grant of parole as per Ext.P1 is the 2nd respondent under section 397(b) of the Rules. Aggrieved by the delay in the issue of grant of parole to the petitioners' sons, they have approached this court by filing writ petition before this court, a copy of which was produced as Ext.P6. W.P.(C)No.115/2020 was disposed of by Ext.P6 judgment directing the 2nd respondent to dispose of Exts.P2 and P4 representations. Thereafter, the second respondent by Ext.P7 order dismissed the application filed by the first petitioner. The above applications were rejected by Ext.P7 and P8 orders on the ground that the reports given by the police were adverse to them. It was reported that release of the sons of the petitioners were not appreciated by the family of the victims and the law and order situation may get worsoned, if they are released. Challenging the above, W.P.(C) No.10305/2020 was filed,which was allowed by Ext.P9 judgment directing the DGP(Prisons) to consider the applications afresh. It seems that though the police reports were adverse, the probationary officer has given a report in favour of release. It is also brought on record that the interim bail was granted to the first accused for the period 2/7/2020 to 14/8/2020. Interim bail was granted to the son of the second petitioner for the period 17/7/2020 to 14/8/2020. The petitioners have approached this court contending that thereafter, by Ext.P15 and P16 orders, the request for parole were dismissed by the second respondent. The petitioners challenge the above orders and seek to quash Ext.P15 and Ext.P16. They also sought direction to the second respondent to release the first and third accused in SC No.97/2014 granting them parole.

4. Two statement of facts were filed on behalf of the second respondent dated 3/10/2020 and 26/4/2021 respectively. In the statement of facts dated 3/10/2020, it was contended that, persons who were entitled to ordinary leave were only those persons who got ordinary leave earlier. Relaxation was given only in Rule