SC stays Rajasthan HC order releasing convict on emergent parole for procreation, Legal News, ET LegalWorld – Legal Firms


New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Friday stayed a Rajasthan High Court order to release a convict, serving a 20-year sentence for kidnapping and raping a minor girl, on emergent parole for 15 days for procreation. The high court had passed the order on October 14 on a plea by the convict, filed through his wife, seeking emergent parole for having a child.

The convict has undergone two years out of the 20-year sentence awarded to him by a special judge of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) court in June for kidnapping and raping a 15-year-old girl.

The high court had said considering the young age of the convict as well as his wife, and also relying upon a previous judgment, it was inclined to allow the petition and release the convict on emergent parole for 15 days.

The appeal against the high court order came up for hearing before a bench of justices A S Bopanna and P S Narasimha, which stayed it.

The apex court also sought the convict’s response on the plea filed by the State of Rajasthan and others against the high court order.

Senior advocate Manish Singhvi appeared for the Rajasthan government in the matter.

The plea before the high court had sought emergent parole on the ground of want of progeny under Rule 11 of the Rajasthan Prisons (Release On Parole) Rules, 2021, read with Article 14 (equality before law) and 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution.

The plea filed by the state and others before the top court said the high court failed to appreciate the report of the Alwar superintendent of police which stated that the man had committed grave offences of kidnapping and rape of a minor, and he and the victim are residents of the same village.

It said if the statute of the Rajasthan Prisons (Release On Parole) Rules, 2021, do not permit release of a person for procreation, the same cannot be allowed as being violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.

“Admittedly, the respondent (man) has only served two years out of a sentence of 20 years imprisonment which is less than half. Also, Rule 16(2)(a) specifically mentions that prisoners convicted under POCSO Act shall not be eligible for release on parole. This by itself makes the respondent ineligible for parole,” it said.

The plea said the high court order is solely based upon “extraneous factors of religious philosophies, cultural, sociological, and humanitarian aspects, and in complete contravention of the law”.

“It is pertinent to mention that keeping in mind certain humanitarian and familial considerations, Rule 11 of the Parole Rules lay down specific grounds for emergent parole; namely critical health condition of a family member, death of a relative, damage to life or property from a natural calamity, marriage of a prisoner or his family members and delivery of prisoner’s wife,” the plea said.

It said high court did not consider the ramifications of the judgment which could lead to a “floodgate of applications” for release on parole on this ground as well as other grounds not mentioned in the rules such as in this case. PTI ABA SJK ABA ANB ANB


Source link