Dismissed

Shinto v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Jul 2023WP(C)/84/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writer of this judgment dismissed a writ petition filed by a life convict seeking emergency or ordinary parole on grounds of illness and family emergency. The court found no merit, ruling that strict adherence to prison rules bars release for prisoners convicted under specific offences until the term expires.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's request for ordinary or emergency parole is dismissed as he has not completed the required period of imprisonment.

Shinto Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

WP(C) NO. 84 OF 2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 20TH ASHADHA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 84 OF 2021

¶5

PETITIONER/S:

¶6

SHINTO

¶7

AGED 33 YEARS
S/O. XAVIER, VALIYAPARAMBU HOUSE, WESTERN SIDE OF X'
AN CHURCH, MUTTINAKAM KARA, VARAPPUZHA VILLAGE, NOW
RESIDING AT KOONAMMAVU, CHERUPPADOM BHAGOM, NEAR
THIRUMUPPAM BUS STOP, PURAMBOKKU ERNAKULAM.
BY ADV LAVARAJ M.G.

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶10

2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695001.

¶11

3 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, PRISON HEADQUARTERS, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695012.

¶12

4 SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, VIYYUR, THRISSUR-680010. BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C) NO. 84 OF 2021

¶15

¶16

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. ======================== W.P.(C)No.84 of 2021

¶17

--------------------------------------------

¶18

Dated this the 11^th day of July, 2023

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Petitioner is a life convict. He was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and for 10 years imprisonment under Section 394 IPC, apart from 6 months imprisonment for other offences in S.C.No.179/2010 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam.

¶21

Petitioner has been in custody for more than 10 years, and he seeks the grant of parole after relaxing the Rules. Petitioner alleges that the rigour of the Rules prescribed was relaxed for other prisoners on various occasions and that the respondents were adopting a pick-and-choose method. Petitioner further pleaded that he has only 5% vision in his left eye and that before becoming completely blind, he wishes to have treatment outside. He has also averred that his right leg had sustained a fracture in an accident and a rod has been inserted, and that he needs medical treatment for his leg as well. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel also sought the grant of emergency parole to assist as a bystander for his

¶22

WP(C) NO. 84 OF 2021

¶23

¶24

brother, who is allegedly suffering from severe coronary artery disease. Thus the petitioner has sought his release on leave, either ordinary or emergency.

¶25

A statement has been filed by the 4^th respondent pleading that petitioner has not availed any leave during the tenure of his imprisonment. It is stated that as per Rule 400(7)(2) and Rule 397(L)(ii) of the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Rules 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’), emergency leave, as well as ordinary leave, are not available to prisoners who were convicted for the offence under Section 394 of the IPC. It was stated that the Rules were relaxed for other convicts as per the Supreme Court order to prevent the spreading of corona among prisoners and also considering the fact that the Rules did not exclude the offences under which those convicts were convicted.

¶26

It was further pointed out that one Sri. Francis, who was convicted in S.C.No.289/2013 was granted emergency leave to attend the marriage of his daughter and that he returned back to the prison by following the conditions imposed. The person was subsequently granted special leave due to Covid-19, on the ground that he was released on emergency leave earlier. In the statement dated 02.08.2021, it was mentioned that the petitioner has completed only 7 years 6 months and 25 days (as on 02-08-2021)

¶27

WP(C) NO. 84 OF 2021

¶28

¶29

and that he will be eligible for emergency leave only on completion of 10 years, provided the reports are in his favour.

¶30

I have considered the submissions of Sri.Lavaraj.M.G., learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. K.A.Noushad, learned Government Pleader.

¶31

Rule 400(7) and Rule 397(L)(ii) of Rules, stipulate that convicts who have been convicted under Section 392 to section 402 IPC will not be eligible for emergency leave or for ordinary leave until the completion of their period of imprisonment under those offences. Petitioner has undergone imprisonment of 9 years 6 months and 2 days as on today, and therefore, he is not eligible to be released on emergency leave or ordinary leave at present.

¶32

In the decision in Loucy Babu v. Director General of Prisons and Correctional Service, Thiruvananthapuram and

¶33

Others [2017 (1) KHC 378] , it was observed that courts cannot ignore the period prescribed in the rules even in the exercise of the powers under writ jurisdiction while granting parole.

¶34

Petitioner was convicted for the offence under section 394

¶35

IPC for a period of ten years imprisonment apart from life imprisonment under section 302 IPC. Since the Rules stipulate that a person who has been convicted under Section 392 to 402 of the IPC cannot be released on emergency leave or for ordinary leave until

¶36

WP(C) NO. 84 OF 2021

¶37

¶38

the expiry of the period of imprisonment for those offences, the relief sought for by the petitioner for ordinary leave or for emergency parole on the ground of his brother’s illness, cannot be entertained at this stage.

¶39

In view of the above, I find no merit in this writ petition. It is dismissed accordingly.

¶40

sd/

¶41

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE

¶42

jm/

¶43

WP(C) NO. 84 OF 2021

¶44

¶45

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 84/2021

¶46

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P2

¶47

Exhibit P3
EXHIBIT P1

¶48

CORONARY ANGIOGRAM REPORT DATED 08/06/2023
OF GENERAL HOSPITAL ERNAKULAM
DISCHARGE SUMMARY OF SHIJU, MY BROTHER,
ISSUED FROM GENERAL HOSPITAL, ERNAKULAM
TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29/03/2019
IN CRL. APPEAL NO. 1101/2014 OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT.

Shinto v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shinto 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Soman Vs K.G.Santhosh

K.S.John Vs State of Kerala

Eapen Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Gokuldas @ Gokulan Vs State of Kerala

P v Cherian Vs State of Kerala

Ryner Lopez Vs State of Kerala