"Why Parole Cannot Be Granted To Share A Happy Moment?": Bombay HC Allows Murder Convict To Bid Farewell To His Son Going Abroad For Studies
The Bombay High Court granted parole to a man to arrange for the financial resources and bid farewell to his son who was going to Australia for a period of two years for studies.
The Court was dealing with a writ petition filed by the murder convict seeking for his release on parole.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande remarked, “Grief, is an emotion, so, is happiness and if Parole can be granted to share grief, why not to share a happy occasion or moment. … The petitioner has placed on record the offer letter from the concerned University and a reading of the same would necessarily lead as to an inference, that for getting him admitted in institution and for arranging for his traveling expenses, huge amount has to be garnered and unless and until the father is available to arrange for this amount, his young son may loose a chance and the offer which he has received.”
The Bench added that it is a moment to rejoice, when his son deserves a goodbye with best wishes being bestowed upon him from his father, and hence, he should not be kept away from this moment, which brings pride to him, being a father.
Advocate Sandesh More represented the petitioner while Public Prosecutor H.S. Venegavkar and APP Ashvini A. Takalkar represented the respondents.
In this case, the petitioner, a convict sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life on being found guilty of commission of an offence punishable under Sections 302, 120B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by the Sessions Judge had approached the High Court, making a request for his release on parole for a period of 30 days. His son was selected for admission in Master of Data Science Program at RMIT University, Melbourne in Australia and the curriculum was to commence from July 22, 2024 of which the duration was of 2 years.
On being offered a seat in the aforesaid program, there was a requirement of deposit of tuition fees in the Indian currency of Rs. 36,70,518/-. In addition, the student had to bear the travelling and stay expenses. The petitioner/convict had earlier applied for parole before the District Collector but the Additional District Magistrate reported that the case of the convict was pending in the High Court and hence, his application for parole could not be considered. It was informed that he may apply for bail before the competent court.
The High Court in the above context of the case observed, “We fail to understand the reasoning adopted in the said communication, as mere pendency of the proceedings in form of an Appeal before this Court may not be a ground to reject an application for Parole, as it is the exclusive power vested in the Superintendent of Prison and the Competent Authorities, who are competent to sanction the release of convicted prisoner on Parole, as specifically set out in the Rule 18 of the Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, and as far as the prisoners convicted by the court situated within the State of Maharashtra but confined in prisons situated outside the State, it is the Additional Director General of Police and the Inspector General of Prison and Correctional Services, Maharashtra State, Pune, who is authorized to pass an order.”
The Court said that if for the purpose of celebration of marriage, parole can be granted, why merely because the rule does not contemplate such a contingency, the benefit of this rule shall not be extended to the petitioner.
“If one turn to Rule 19, which contemplate release of a prisoner on Parole and in case of ‘Emergency’ Parole for a period of 7 days, when there is a death in the family which include his close relative like grandfather, grandmother, father, mother, spouse, son, daughter etc., on ‘Special Parole’ for the period of 4 days, for attending the happy occasions like marriage of son, daughter, siblings and ‘Regular Parole’, so as to cater to the need of his family which includes serious illness of father/mother/spouse/son/daughter, delivery of his wife or in order to cater to the family in case of natural calamities, such as house collabs, food, fire, earthquake etc., we miserably fail to understand why a happy occasion like this, where his son who has secured an admission in a prestigious University in Australia and since he seek temporary release relief on that count, so that he can arrange for the financial resources and also bid farewell to his son, who is going to depart from the country for a period of two years, why the benefit to Parole shall be denied to him by restricting it to the circumstances set out therein and not in a situation which the petitioner has brought before us”, it noted.
The, Court, therefore, directed the release of the petitioner on parole leave for a period of 10 days including the period of his travel to Noida, to be united with his family. It further clarified that such release shall be subject to execution of a personal bond and one local surety in the tune of Rs. 25,000/-.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the writ petition and granted parole to the petitioner.
Cause Title- Vivek Krishnamurari Shrivastav v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AS:27081-DB)
