Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Initially on the question of procedure I have also heard the Public Prosecutor. However I gave notice to the Advocate General and also heard him on the validity of R. 974 of the A.P. Prisons Rules and also Rule 23 of the Suspension of Sentence and Parole Rules, 1981.

5. A counter-affidavit was filed after arguments were heard as the factual position of the surrendering of the prisoners is necessary. It is stated in the counter affidavit that out of six persons only one prisoner surrendered and the remaining prisoners are overstaying n parole since 1-7-84 and this counter-affidavit was sworn to on 29-11-84. The other contention raised in the counter-affidavit is that the petition has become infructuous as the period fixed in the original order of release has already expired and no order was passed extending the period after 30-6-84. It is also averred that the State Government has got power under the relevant rules to suspend the sentence pending the appeal. The allegations relating to political bias is refuted.

21. To start with the grounds are ill-founded The uniform ground for releasing is that the accused have contracted debts and the details of debts cannot be obtained by the members of the family which can never be a sufficient cause. Rule l(c) contemplates serious illness, death, marriage of any member of family or other sufficient cause. Normally the period of release shall not exceed one month as per Parole Rules and only fifteen days as per Prisons Rules. But first order itself was for two months and the last order was for three months. No verification from the jail authorities or the Presiding Officer as contemplated under the Cr. P.C was taken into account. These are the persons convicted for murder on 26-2-83 and under R. 13 they are not entitled for parole unless they undergo imprisonment for three years. As per R. 17 no further extension shall be granted However extension is granted thrice to all the prisoners involved in the same case and even on a single application also sometimes without examining the individual cases of each prisoner. In result now it is admitted that out of six prisoners, only alone surrendered on 3-9-84 and the other five persons are overstaying parole since 1-7-84. In the affidavit it is not even stated as to what were the steps taken by them and who are the sureties that stood guarantee for the release of the prisoners or if they were released on their own bonds.

27. It is true that the time stipulated under the impugned orders, releasing prisoners had expired. That is why, I heard the petition finally even though the prisoners are not served with notices in this writ petition. The orders passed in their favour have worked themselves out and the same cannot be set aside. However there is no excuse for them to overstay. But in view of the fact that the prisoners are still overstaying parole since 1-7-84, it is really impossible to accept the contention of the Government Pleader that this writ petition has become infructuous. It is the bounden duty of the State Government to take immediate steps to apprehend the prisoners who are overstaying since July, 1984 and put them in the prison and enforce the imprisonment faithfully.