Partly allowed

Sajitha Beevi v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Mar 2018WP(C)/6486/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court addressed discriminatory denial of parol to two accused (wife of accused 13 and sister of accused 11) while others in the same case were granted it. The Court held that an unfavorable police report alone could not justify such denial and ordered the Director General of Police to reconsider their applications within one month.

What did the court decide?

Writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to dispose of applications for parol for accused Nos. 11 and 13 within one month from receipt of the judgment.

Sajitha Beevi Vs State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 6486 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

1 SAJITHA BEEVI, AGED 27, W/O. ANSARUDEEN, ANZAR MANZIL, THANGAL NAGAR, EARAM, THADIKKATT.P.O, ANCHAL, KOLLAM.

¶8

2 NASEEMA BEEVI, AGED 45, W/O. MOHAMMED BASHEER, BISMILLA MANZIL, VARAYADI, VAYYANAM.P.O., KOTTARAKKARA.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN

¶10

SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR SRI.P.K.RAKESH KUMAR SRI.K.S.MIZVER SMT.S.JESSIN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA TO BE REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.

¶13

2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PRISON AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, KERALA PRISON AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN- 695 012.

¶14

3. SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON AND CORRECTIONAL HOME, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 012

¶15

BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Msd.

¶18

13.03.2018

¶19

WP(C).No. 6486 of 2018 (I)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

EXHIBIT P1	PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT OF ADDL.DISTRICT PROBATION OFFICER, KOLLAM DATED 31.10.2016.
EXHIBIT P2	PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT OF ADDL. DISTRICT PROBATION OFFICER, KOLLAM DATED 5.11.2016.
EXHIBIT P3	PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)NO. 38980/17 DATED 16.1.2018.
EXHIBIT P4	PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 29.1.2018.
EXHIBIT P4(A)	PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 29.1.2018.
EXHIBIT P5	PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER R.T.I TO ANCHAL POLICE STATION DATED 5.12.2018.
EXHIBIT P6	PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION UNDER R.T.I TO KADAKKAL POLICE STATION DATED 5.2.2018.
EXHIBIT P7	PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.5.2013 IN W.P.(C)NO. 27476/12 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT.
RESPONDENT(S)'	EXHIBITS :
EXHIBIT R3(A):	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.ADPOK/ME/21/2016-17 DATED 05.11.2016 OF THE PROBATION OFFICER.
EXHIBIT R3(B):	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.D1-8468/17/QR DATED 27.04.2017 FROM THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF.
EXHIBIT R3(C):	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.D1-43729/16/QR DATED 23.10.2017 FROM THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF.
EXHIBIT R3(D):	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.01.2018 IN W.P.(C)NO. 38980 OF 2017 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT R3(E):	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.CP-5-42/9880/2018 DATED ON 05.03.2018.
EXHIBIT R3(F):	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.CP1(S)10/2017 DATED 20.11.2017.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msd.

13.03.2018

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

¶28

W.P.(C) No. 6486 of 2018

¶29

Dated this the 13^th day of March, 2018

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶32

2.The first petitioner is the wife of accused No.13 and the

¶33

second petitioner is the sister of accused No.11 in SC No. 1322 of 2004 of Sessions Court (Adhoc-1), Kollam. The accused were convicted and are now undergoing imprisonment in Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram. They were denied parol. It is alleged that the other accused in the very same case were granted parol and the above accused have been discriminated. The prayer

¶34

is to declare that they are entitled to be released on parol and to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant them parol.

¶35

3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

¶36

4.It is not disputed that the accused other than 11 & 13 were granted parol. Parol was denied to these accused

¶37

W.P.(C) No. 6486 of 2018

¶38

..2..

¶39

for the reason that the report of the police is not in their favour. That may be true, but, that alone cannot be a ground to deny them parol. The matter has to be reconsidered by the Director General of Police.

¶40

5.The learned Senior Government Pleader submits that

¶41

the application has now been forwarded to the Director General of Police. The Director General of Police may exercise his discretion and take appropriate action.

¶42

In the result, this W.P.(C) is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to dispose of the applications filed by accused Nos.11 & 13 for releasing them on parol taking into account the fact that the other accused have been granted parol. The application may be disposed of within one month from the date of receipt or production of a copy of this judgment.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶45

bka/

Sajitha Beevi v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajitha Beevi v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sameer .M.P Vs State of Kerala

P.C.Nazar Vs State of Kerala

Thomas D'Zosa Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Farooque Vs State of Kerala

Thahina Vs State of Kerala

Smaran Britto Vs State of Kerala