In a writ petition filed before the Karnataka High Court to release the petitioner’s son on general parole, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj noted that the report submitted by the District Superintendent of Police lacked reasons for rejection of parole and hence, rejected the same for being perfunctory in nature while allowing the convict to be released on parole.
The mother of the convict (petitioner) sought for her son to be released on general parole for 30 days along with a liberty to seek extension so that he could supervise and complete the renovation of his residence, which was in a dilapidated condition.
The convict was sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years for offences punishable under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and Section 376(2)(6) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, by the District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-I, Chikkamagaluru. An application for parole of the convict was rejected, and hence, they appeared before this Court.
The Court perused Regulation 635 of the Karnataka Prisoners and Corrections Service Manual, 2021. It was stated that under Section 55 of the Karnataka Prisons Act, 1963, and Rule 191 of the Karnataka Prisons Rules, 1974, the State Government or any authority was empowered to release a convict temporarily. The Court said that a release of a prisoner not only saves him from the evils of incarceration but also enables him to maintain social relations with his family and the community.
The Court noted that the State had categorically opined that the grant of parole should be liberalized to help a prisoner maintain a harmonious relationship with his family. However, it was said that this privilege should be allowed to select prisoners based on well-defined norms of eligibility.
Further, the Court stated that the nature of the report that is required to be obtained and the issues that are required to be considered have not been specified clearly as per Regulation 638(ii)(b). The Court opined that the Chief Superintendent/Superintendent of Prisons should be required to seek certain information or report on each application, depending upon the nature of the offense and punishment. Once such a report is obtained, the Chief Superintendent/Superintendent of Prisons must forward the application to the Director General of Prisons and Correction Services for consideration, along with his remarks.
Further, the Court noted that in many matters that come up before the Court, it is seen that no order is passed by the Director General of Prison and Correction Services, and that the application continues to be pending even though the report has been received. It was said that after receiving the report, the Chief Superintendent/Superintendent of Prisons should forward the parole application to the Director General within 15 days.
The Court stated that the reason for parole of the convict mentioned in the application is covered under Ground 5 of Regulation 636. It was noted that the report received from the Superintendent did not indicate why the parole to the convict should be rejected.
It was said that the report should indicate whether the convict would be a flight risk, whether he would indulge in similar offences, or is likely to cause harm to the victim or vice versa.
The Additional Chief Secretary of Home and the Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services were directed to look into the nature of the report that needs to be submitted in parole cases, to prepare suitable forms, and to carry out necessary training of all officials concerned.
The Court stated that applications for parole are rejected due to the perfunctory nature of the reports submitted. Further, for increased transparency, the Court directed that a dashboard be built on the website of the Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services, wherein all details regarding parole are present.
Noting that the family of a prisoner may not be a resident of the jurisdiction where the prisoner is incarcerated, the Court directed that the procedure for parole in Chapter 34 of the 2021 Manual be enabled such that all applications are filed and processed electronically. The Director General of Police (Police IT) was directed to submit a project report within four weeks and to look at various other provisions of the 2021 Manual that could be e-enabled.
The Court stated that the report furnished by the District Superintendent of Police, in the present case, was inadequate as it did not make out any clear case as to why parole should be rejected. Thus, the Court rejected the report and directed the Chief Superintendent to release the convict on parole for 30 days after subjecting the convict to certain conditions.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Mr. Sirajuddin Ahmed
For Respondents – Ms. Yashodha, AGA
