Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. Now, having held so, considering the merits of the case, undoubtedly the gravity of offense and the manner in which the involvement of the present applicants have been projected by the State, the applicants facing conviction for serious charges for which death penalty has been awarded. This Court is called upon NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/5471/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2023 undefined to consider the case of convicts for grant of parole leave pending confirmation case. At the same time the Court finds that not granting of relief in the form of parole to a convict, who has continuously undergone a long period of incarceration would be unjust, unfair and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution particularly when right to file appeal is treated as one of the facet of Article 21 of the Constitution. The parole and furlough leaves are part of the penal and prison system with a view to humanise the prison system. It is a right of the prisoner recognised under section 5(A) and 5(B) of the Prisoners Act, 1894. All fixed term sentences of imprisonment of above 18 months are subject to release on parole after one third of the period of sentence has been served. It is a provisional release from confinement but is deemed to be part of the imprisonment. The Court notices further that there is no classification of the prisoners based on gravity of the sentence which disentitle a convict facing death sentence to be not extended privilege leave in the form of parole. At the same time, examining matter in writ jurisdiction, the Court cannot oblivious of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which recognizes right to life with human dignity and all that goes along with it namely, the bare NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/5471/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2023 undefined necessities of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing, an shelter but also freely moving and mixing with his relations. The convict has the right to meet his family members during the period of incarceration pending the confirmation case. The Courts are facing situations where the pendency of criminal litigation indicates no possibility of early hearing of the appeal and its disposal on merits. The proceedings before trial court have almost taken 14 years and the adjudication of confirmation case would add further years. This Court finds that taking into consideration their long period of continuous incarceration for almost 14 years, the applicants deserves parole leave. In the case of Sunil Batra Vs. Delhi Administration, reported in (1978) 4 SCC 409, the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the rights of prisoners to meet their family members. Also, the Supreme Court in the case of Asfaq ( supra), held that grant of parole cannot be circumscribed by the gravity of offense. It is a well settled position that the graver the offense the severe the punishment bound to follow. Also, with the imposition of severe punishment, there is more likelihood of the accused jumping the bail.