Read Time: 04 minutes

Synopsis

A Bench of Justice Ziyad Rahman AA, while invoking the powers of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, granted parole of 15 days to a convict. 

In the present matter, the Convict was to undergo imprisonment for life for the offences punishable under Sections 450, 394 and 302 of the IPC. The petition was filed by the wife of the convict.

The Court considered the long term imprisonment that the convict has already undergone. 

It was submitted that since in the records the convict was endorsed as a 'habitual offender', therefore was not granted parole, and 'on account of the statutory stipulation contained in Rule 397 (l)(1)', the bail was not granted. However, the behaviour and conduct inside the prison was found to be satisfactory, as submitted by the Government Pleader.

The Kerala High Court took note of the period of imprisonment that the convict has already undergone. Therefore, it opined, "It is an undisputed fact that the convict is undergoing imprisonment for a period of more than ten years. Even though he is a life convict, the materials indicate that he had already undergone a substantial period of imprisonment and was not granted parole at any point. Considering the fact that he was denied parole all along for such a long period, some humanitarian consideration has to be taken in this case".

However, the Bench did take note of the endorsement in the records, but the fact that he has already undergone 10 years of imprisonment, "the track record of the convict being a habitual offender in the distant past has lost its significance due to the passage of time". 

Stating that, the Court believed that one opportunity could be granted to the petitioner considering all the facts and circumstances. 

 

CASE TITLE: Beena Tony vs. State of Kerala