Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Fatima Fernandes, was convicted of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code on 09/03/2013 and sentenced to life imprisonment; her appeal against conviction was pending before the High Court. She applied for 30 days' parole to attend to her ailing sister suffering from hypertension and depression. The Inspector General of Prisons rejected her application on 09/12/2016 on the ground that an enquiry by the Superintendent of Police reported a possibility of her threatening witnesses if released. The petitioner challenged this rejection as arbitrary and without proper consideration of her past conduct. She had been granted furlough earlier and also released on 30 days' parole on 07/04/2016, during which she never violated any terms or caused any mischief. Before the High Court, her counsel argued that the rejection was baseless, while the Additional Public Prosecutor conceded that her request could be granted given her earlier clean record. The court examined the impugned order and the submissions, noting that the petitioner's past conduct showed no violation during previous releases on furlough and parole. Finding the rejection reasoning insufficient, the court directed the respondent authority to reconsider the parole application within three weeks, taking into account her past conduct and restricting the bond amount to ₹10,000. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Parole - Rejection of Parole Application - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302; Prisons Act, 1894 - The petitioner, a life convict for murder, sought parole due to sister's illness; her application was rejected by the Inspector General of Prisons citing possibility of threatening witnesses. The High Court found the rejection arbitrary given her clean record of compliance during earlier furlough and parole releases and directed the authority to reconsider the application within three weeks, limiting the bond amount to ₹10,000. Held that past conduct and non-violation of terms must be considered when deciding parole, and mere apprehension of witness threat is insufficient without evidence (Paras 4-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether rejection of parole application on the ground of possibility of threatening witnesses when the convict had earlier been released on furlough/parole without violation was justified
Final Decision
The High Court disposed of the petition, directing the respondent no.2 to reconsider the petitioner's application for parole within three weeks, taking into account her past conduct and earlier releases, and restricting the bond amount to ₹10,000. No costs.
Law Points
- Parole can be granted based on past conduct
- rejection for mere possibility of threatening witnesses without evidence is arbitrary
- earlier furlough parole without violation is a favourable factor
