09 July 2024 Parole and Furlough >> Criminal Law  

On June 28, 2024, Mr. Venegavkar, representing the Respondent No. 2, assured the court that the petitioner’s request for parole was under consideration and promised a decision within a week. Following this, a communication from the Superintendent of Sub-Jail, Silvassa, on July 4, informed that the convict had applied for parole, but the Additional District Magistrate cited pending legal proceedings as a reason for denial. This reasoning was questioned by the court, which highlighted that the power to grant parole rests with the Superintendent of Prisons and relevant authorities, as outlined in the Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959.

The petitioner, who is serving a life sentence for serious offenses, approached the court under exceptional circumstances. He has been incarcerated for nearly nine years and his appeal is still pending. The urgency arose when his son received an admission offer to a Master of Data Science program at RMIT University in Melbourne, commencing on July 22, 2024. The father needed to secure funds for tuition and travel expenses and wished to bid farewell to his son before this significant journey.

Despite the emotional appeal, Mr. Venegavkar contended that the reasons presented did not fall under the categories for granting emergency or special parole as defined by Rule 19. However, the court emphasized the importance of family continuity and the positive interpretation of parole rules to foster connections between inmates and their families. The underlying intent of these rules is to support convicts in maintaining familial relationships, which can play a crucial role in their rehabilitation.

The court noted that if parole can be granted for grief, it should equally extend to joyous occasions. The decision highlighted the significance of allowing the petitioner to celebrate his son's educational milestone. It was argued that both happiness and sorrow are valid emotions deserving of shared experiences, especially during pivotal life events.

After considering the petitioner’s conduct during his incarceration, which included timely reporting after previous paroles, the court decided to grant a 10-day parole, effective from July 12, 2024. This period would allow him to assist with the necessary arrangements and bid farewell to his son.

The release was conditioned on the execution of a personal bond and a local surety, with the petitioner required to report to the police every other day during his parole. This decision reflects a nuanced approach to the justice system, recognizing the importance of family connections while maintaining accountability. In conclusion, this case underscores the delicate balance between legal obligations and human emotions, advocating for a justice system that acknowledges the role of family in the rehabilitation of inmates.