Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande, JJ., were faced with an unusual request for release on parole by a prisoner (“convict”), convicted under the provisions of the Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”)-Sections 302 [Corresponding Section 101 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (“BNS”)], and 120-B (Corresponding Section 61(2) of the BNS), read with Section 34 (Corresponding Section 3(5) of the BNS), undergoing sentenced imprisonment at Sub-Jail, Silvassa (“Jail”).
The convict had requested for the grant of parole, so that he could arrange the finances for his son’s higher education from abroad. The Court was dissatisfied by the reasons provided by the Jail authorities for the rejection of parole and perused the provisions of the Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 (“Rules”). Appreciating the unusual circumstances of the case, the Division Bench opined that parole could not be denied in the case merely because the instant contingency has not been contemplated in the Rules. The Court, therefore, granted release on parole to the convict, subject to certain conditions.
Background
On 28-06-2024, the Public Prosecutor had made a categorical statement that the decision for the convict’s request for parole shall be made within a week. The Jail Superintendent informed the Public Prosecutor that the convict had applied for a parole before the District Collector, Surat, but the Additional District Magistrate reported that the convict’s appeal was pending before the High Court, and therefore, his application could not be considered.
Court’s analysis and decision
The Court expressed its dissatisfaction with the reasoning cited by the authorities for having rejected the request for parole, stating that mere pendency of proceedings before the High Court could not have been a ground for rejection, as it is the exclusive power vested in the Superintendent of Prison and the Competent Authorities.
Highlighting the provisions of the Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 (“Rules”), the Court stated that as regards to the prisoners convicted by a court in Maharashtra but imprisoned outside Maharashtra, the Additional Director General of Police and the Inspector General of Prison and Correctional Services, Maharashtra State, Pune, are authorised to pass an order.
The Court appreciated the unusual circumstances of the request for parole, that the convict’s son had been selected for Master’s in Data Science Program at RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia, and the curriculum of which is set to begin from 22-07-2024, lasting for 2 years thereon. The requirement of a tuition fee alone was almost Rs. 37 lakhs, in addition to the travel and stay expenses to be borne. It is for this reason the convict was requesting a release on parole.
The Court perused the Rules, wherein the various grounds for release on parole have been stipulated such as- death of a close family member (Emergency Parole); marriage of children or sibling (Special Parole); and to cater to the needs of family, including serious illness, birth of child, or during a time of a disaster or calamity (Regular Parole). The Court questioned that why the benefit of parole should be denied to the convict when his son has secured admission at a prestigious university and would require the arrangement of financial resources for the same. Given the unusual circumstances raised by the convict, the Court stated that if parole could be granted for grief, and if it could be granted for a happy occasion or for the purpose of celebration of marriage, then the benefit of the Rules cannot be denied to the convict merely because they do not contemplate for the contingency raised by the convict.
The Court took note of the conduct of the convict as an inmate, and found that during an earlier parole, the convict had reported back, timely.
In the light of the above-stated, the Court directed the release of the convict on parole from 12-07-2024 until 22-07-2024, including the travel time to Noida to be united with his family. Furthermore, the Court imposed certain conditions for the parole and directed the convict to report back to the prison on 23-07-2024.
[Vivek Krishnamurari Shrivastav v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 2201, decided on 09-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: Sandesh More, Advocate
For the respondents: H.S. Venegavkar, Public Prosecutor; Dr. Ashvini A. Takalkar, APP
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
