AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Nagaprasanna, J
The petitioner is before this court seeking her husband's release on parole. The husband of the petitioner is accused in Spl.Case.No.32/2010 for offences punishable under Sections 341, 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.
Heard the learned counsel Sri.Sirajuddin Ahmed, appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General Sri.C.S.Pradeep along with the learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.K.P.Yoganna, appearing for the respondents.
The petitioner's husband gets convicted of the offence and is imprisoned for life. The wife of the petitioner has presented the subject petition seeking release of her husband on general parole on the ground that she is suffering from certain ill-health and the presence of her husband was imperative. An application made to the prison authorities have not yielded any result. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking her husband's release.
This Court, by an order cannot direct premature release of any convict sought in the prayer. Parole is the one that the petitioner's husband would be entitled to, in the peculiar facts of the case that the petitioner is suffering from certain ailments and the necessity of the husband to be along with the wife.
The imprisonment certificate produced along with the petition would depict that the conduct of the petitioner's husband in the prison is satisfactory for over 14 years of him being in the prison. In that light, I deem it appropriate to grant general parole to the husband of the petitioner for a period of 30 days, which becomes operational from the forenoon of 25.03.2024 upto the evening of 23.04.2024.
Learned counsel for the petitioner at this juncture submits that a direction be issued for placing the case of the convict before the Committee for premature release.
Learned Additional Advocate General submits that as and when the Committee meets, the case of the convict would be placed before the Committee, as his conduct is satisfactory for any action, in accordance with law.
For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed in part.
(ii) Mandamus issues to respondent No.2 to consider the representation of the petitioner and release the detenue/Santu @ Santhosh, (CTP No.13058) on general parole for a period of 30 days from the forenoon of 25.03.2024, till the evening of 23.04.2024.
(iii) The convict (CTP No.13058) - shall mark his attendance in the jurisdictional police station, weekly once throughout the period of his parole and it would be the responsibility of the jurisdictional police to take him to gaol, in the event, the convict (CTP No.13058) would evade going back to the gaol, after the expiry of the period of general parole.
(iv) Respondent No.2 shall stipulate strict conditions as are usually stipulated, to ensure return of the detenue to the gaol and that he shall not commit any other offence during the period of parole.
(v) Registry is directed to communicate this order to respondent No.2, by way of electronic mail, forthwith.
(vi) The petitioner is at liberty to seek extension of parole, which shall be considered looking at the conduct of the husband of the petitioner – convict while he is out on parole.