Life convict cannot be denied benefit of premature release just because he had absconded during parole period, rules Madras High Court
Justices M.S. Ramesh and Sunder Mohan order immediate release of murder convict ‘Pokkai’ Ravi alias E. Ravi from Kalapet central prison in Puducherry
A life convict, who had absconded during the parole period but subsequently arrested, cannot be denied the benefit of premature release after completion of 14 years if he had undergone the punishment imposed for having absconded, the Madras High Court has ruled.
A Division Bench of Justices M.S. Ramesh and Sunder Mohan agreed with advocate V. Elangovan that refusing to consider such a convict for premature release, even after 21 years of imprisonment including the one year sentence for having absconded, would amount to double jeopardy.
The verdict was passed while allowing a writ petition filed by ‘Pokkai’ Ravi alias E. Ravi to quash a premature release rejection order passed by the Chief Superintendent of Jails in Puducherry on January 19, 2024 and consequently order immediate release of the petitioner from the Kalapet central prison.
The petitioner’s counsel brought it to the notice of the court that his client was convicted in a murder case and sentenced to life imprisonment in 2003. The High Court had dismissed his appeal in 2006. Since the Puducherry Prison Rules permit premature release after 14 years, he made an application for it.
However, the Chief Superintendent of Prisons cited two reasons for rejecting the application. The first reason was that the prisoner had been granted six days leave in 2012 but he absconded during that period for as many as 326 days until the police could trace his whereabouts and re-arrest him.
The second reason was that there was a threat to the prisoner’s life if he was released because his rival gang could attempt to murder him leading to disturbance to public order. Assailing both the reasons, Mr. Elangovan said, a separate criminal case was registered against the petitioner for absconding.
A trial court had imposed a punishment of one year of imprisonment for that offence. Since the petitioner had already undergone 21 years of imprisonment since his conviction in 2003, that offence could not be cited to deny the benefit of premature release, the counsel argued and the judges accepted his submission.
They also agreed that there was nothing on record to prove any threat to the petitioner’s life. Since the Probation Officer had recommended for premature release of the prisoner, the judges directed the Puducherry Home Secretary, Inspector General of Prisons and the Chief Superintendent of Jails to release him forthwith.
- Telegram
SEE ALL
PRINT