No extention of parole on kin’s health grounds:  Hyderabad High Court

By R Rajashekar Rao   |  Express News Service  |   Published: 30th October 2017 09:30 AM  |  

HYDERABAD: Prison Rules make a prisoner ineligible for further grant of parole/emergency leave on the ground of continued illness of his/her close relative as the said ground does not fall under any of the rules for which parole can be extended. The rules mandate that the period of release on parole should not ordinarily exceed two weeks except in special circumstances. Primarily, grant of parole is within the exclusive prerogative of the government and it shall decide the period of release on parole on the merits of each case.

In one of the cases before the Hyderabad High Court, the petitioner is a convict serving life sentence at the Cherlapally Central prison in Rangareddy district. He was initially granted parole for a period of 30 days, considering the medical reports of his mother. After some days, his parole was extended by 15 days. 

While he was on parole, he made a representation to the government stating that his mother was aged 76 years and was suffering from serious health problems, and sought extension of parole by six months.

When there was no response from the government to his representation for extension of parole, he filed a writ petition before the High Court with a plea for declaration of the  government’s inaction as illegal and arbitrary.Placing on record various medical reports of the petitioner’s mother, his counsel urged the court to support the case by exercising its discretionary powers.

On the other hand, the government counsel told the court that as per sub-rules (12) and (16) of Rule 974 of the Andhra Pradesh Prison Rules, parole cannot be extended. The continued illness of a relative of the prisoner shall not be considered a reasonable ground to justify grant of extension of the period of release on parole already sanctioned.

Justice Challa Kodanda Ram pointed out that the reason (mother’s illness) stated by the petitioner for extension of parole does not fall under any of the rules for which parole can be extended. On the contrary, sub-rule (16) prohibits illness of a relative of a prisoner for extension of parole. Therefore, non-passing of orders by the state government on the petitioner’s representation cannot be found fault with, the judge noted and dismissed the plea, saying that the petitioner’s request for extension of parole cannot be acceded to.