Tasmiya Shaikh vs State of Goa

Heard the rival submissions on this Criminal Writ Petition.

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.

Present petition is filed by the wife of convict, who is in Aguada jail as he was convicted for the offence punishable u/s 376 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for 7 years.

What is challenged in the present writ petition is the order dated 30/06/2014 passed by the Inspector General of Prisons, the Competent Authority, by which the prayer for parole to the husband of the petitioner was rejected. A copy of the said impugned order is shown to the Court. It is specifically mentioned in the order that the application for parole does not fall within the parameters of Rule 324 of Goa Prison Rules.

Rule 324 of Goa Prison Rules reads thus :

Parole can be granted to the prisoner in the event of emergent situations like death or serious illness of father, mother, brother, sister, spouse and children and also marriage of brother, sister and children or for any other sufficient reasons.

Reply is filed by the respondent State objecting the grant of parole to the husband of the petitioner. It is submitted in the reply that apart from the main contention that the application does not fall within the provisions of Rule 324 of Goa Prison Rules, the conduct of the husband of the petitioner is such so as to disentitle him to the relief of parole. In support of this submission, it is brought to the notice of this Court that earlier when the husband of the petitioner was released on furlough by this Court, he was supposed to return to jail within one month. However, he remained outside purportedly on the ground that he met with an accident and was hospitalised. However, though hospitalisation period was got over on 10th December, 2013, he did not report to the Jail Authorities and also did not inform the Court, which had granted him the furlough. It is only when the police found out his whereabouts, he was picked up on or about 03/01/2014. As such, the conduct of the husband of the petitioner is also required to be considered. Accordingly, the learned Public Prosecutor further argued the matter.

During the arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner brought our attention to the medical papers annexed to the present petition and mainly report of Hematology which shows that the Hemoglobin contents of the present petitioner is 6.9 % as against the normal range for female i.e. 12 % to 16 %. By pointing out this deficit, she submitted that the present petitioner is in a condition of ill health and is pregnant as reported by the Obstetric Ultrasound Report given by the Hospicio Hospital. In this matter, it should be considered as to whether the pregnancy of the present petitioner is of such a nature that she can be considered as seriously ill, thus, requiring the attendance by the husband, who is in jail.

Considering the medical papers and considering the reply filed by the respondent State, we find that there is nothing to interfere with the impugned order of rejection of parole. There is nothing on record to entertain the present writ petition. Hence, rule is discharged.

Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.