Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Niyaz Ahmed Shaikh, a life convict under Section 3(3) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA Act) and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, filed a criminal writ petition challenging the orders dated 01-08-2022 and 06-10-2022 passed by the respondent State authorities rejecting his application for parole leave. The petitioner was convicted on 01-06-2007 and had spent more than 29 years of incarceration, including remission, totaling 34 years and 6 months. He applied for parole on 13-11-2007 on the ground of his 70-year-old mother's ailment, annexing medical papers. The Assistant Commissioner of Police of Kurla Division issued a favourable report on 18-12-2017. However, the Divisional Commissioner rejected the application vide order dated 01-08-2022, citing an adverse police report and the seriousness of the offence under TADA Act. The petitioner sought quashing of the rejection orders and grant of parole. The court considered the submissions of the petitioner's advocate and the State. The court held that parole is a reformative and humanitarian measure, not a right, and rejection must be based on valid and objective grounds. The adverse police report was vague and did not specify any concrete threat or misconduct. The petitioner had undergone long incarceration with good conduct. The court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned orders, and directed the respondents to grant parole to the petitioner for a period of 30 days on usual terms and conditions, including furnishing a personal bond and surety, and reporting to the police station.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Parole - Grounds for Rejection - Parole is a reformative and humanitarian measure, not a right; rejection must be based on valid and objective grounds; adverse police report cannot be the sole basis for rejection; long incarceration and good conduct are relevant factors - The petitioner, a life convict under TADA Act, sought parole for his mother's ailment; the authorities rejected it citing adverse police report and seriousness of offence; the court held that the rejection was not sustainable as the police report was vague and the petitioner had undergone 34 years of imprisonment with good conduct - Held that parole should be granted subject to conditions (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of parole leave to a life convict under TADA Act on the ground of adverse police report and seriousness of offence is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 01-08-2022 and 06-10-2022 are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to grant parole to the petitioner for a period of 30 days on usual terms and conditions, including furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 and a surety of like amount, and reporting to the police station once a week.
Law Points
- Parole is a reformative and humanitarian measure
- not a right
- rejection must be based on valid and objective grounds
- adverse police report cannot be the sole basis for rejection
- long incarceration and good conduct are relevant factors
- Section 3(3) TADA Act
- Section 120-B IPC
