Can a convict be granted parole to visit his "ill" parents? How does the government define an illness as a serious one?

PANJIM: Can a convict be granted parole to visit his "ill" parents? How does the government define an illness as a serious one?



Answers to these otherwise complex questions that perturb the government has become simpler with the order of the single bench of Justice NA Britto in the Bombay High Court, Panjim bench who observed that not every illness is serious but an illness, which is likely to permanently or materially impair, the health of the prisoner could be considered to be serious.



The Court observed that Rule 324 provides as to when parole is to be granted. It states that parole may be granted to a prisoner in the event of emergent situations like death or serious illness of father, mother, brother, sister, spouse and children and also marriage of brother, sister and children.



He observed this while hearing to a petition filed by a convict Sher Singh for parole to visit his ailing father. Presently, he is lodged at Aguada jail. Singh is a convict who is undergoing sentence of twelve years under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act with effect from February 10, 2005.



The Court has directed the government to release Singh on parole for a period of 45 days with the condition that upon execution of a bond of Rs 15,000 with one surety in the like amount and with the further condition that the Petitioner shall report to the nearest police station at Kullu every alternate day.



By an application dated June 22, 2006, Singh had sought for his release on parole for a period of sixty days but it was rejected by the government on the grounds that he is a native of Kullu, Himachal Pradesh and, therefore, there was every possibility that he may take opportunity and jump the parole. So he approached the High Court.



The Court stated that considering the illness of the Singh's father, as certified by the Medical Officer, Regional Hospital, Kullu and by the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat at Arsu, the petitioner ought to have been granted parole as prayed for. The state government had made an inquiry through the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat at Arsu and it was learnt that the petitioner's father was undergoing treatment. Even Singh had produced a medical certificate issued by the Medical Officer, Regional Hospital, Kullu stating that his father was suffering from stricture urethera and was undergoing treatment at the hospital where he was required to undergo surgery and for that attendant was necessary to look after him during the said ailment.



Criticizing the government's move of denying parole, the Court observed that the government doesn't appear to have exercised its discretion rightly considering the medical report as well as the report of the Pradhan, which had further certified that the problem of the Petitioner's father was genuine.