On July 24, the HC said release on temporary bail was “charity” and “grace” extended to prisoners by the Supreme Court and, hence, it could not be claimed as a right. (File)
REITERATING THAT release on temporary bail or emergency parole was not a matter of entitlement, the Bombay High Court on Wednesday asked state government prison authorities to consider releasing convicts sentenced to more than seven years of imprisonment, but had not availed parole or furlough twice or more before the Covid-19 outbreak, on emergency parole with a view to decongest jails in the wake of the pandemic.
The court further clarified that since little would be known about parole conduct of prisoners not out before, or only a single time, jail authorities could impose stringent conditions on them regarding their return.
On July 24, the HC said release on temporary bail was “charity” and “grace” extended to prisoners by the Supreme Court and, hence, it could not be claimed as a right.
A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Madhav Jamdar passed a judgement on Wednesday on a PIL filed by National Alliance for People’s Movement, an alliance of NGOs, run by social worker Medha Patkar and others challenging the classification of prisoners to be released on interim bail or parole to decongest jails. The alliance, through advocate Satish B Talekar had submitted that while the apex court had only said prisoners, who have been convicted or are under trial for offences with maximum punishment up to seven years, the high-powered committee had gone ahead and classified prisoners based on nature of crimes. This, Talekar said, was arbitrary and discriminatory in view of SC directions.
The petitioner also referred to an order by another bench, of July 16, that observed that even though a convict was sentenced for more than seven years in jail and could not avail parole or furlough twice or more before the Covid-19 pandemic, the said person can be released on emergency parole. Public Prosecutor Deepak Thakare for the state had opposed the PIL and informed the bench that following an order of another bench of the HC, the state had been considering release on parole of prisoners serving sentences for crimes such as life sentences and said the HPC had discretion to classify prisoners as per crimes.
Justice Jamdar, who authored 59-paged judgement noted, “We make it clear that the said observations made in the July 16 order are applicable to convicts whose cases fall in the criteria laid down therein. The authorities shall, therefore, act in terms thereof.”
Chief Justice Datta, concurring with observations made by Justice Jamdar said, “No right did crystallise for the inmates of the correctional homes to seek release on interim bail or emergency parole as a matter of entitlement as contended by petitioner.”