Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 2616 (KER)

Khadeeja, W/o Ummar v. State Of Kerala

2025-10-07

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

body2025
JUDGMENT : P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. These three writ petitions are connected and therefore, I am disposing of these three cases by a common order. 2. The sons of the petitioners in WP(Crl.) No.1310/2025 and 1312/2025 are undergoing imprisonment at Central Prison and Correction Home, Thavanoor. The husband of the petitioner in WP(Crl.) No.1307/2025 is also undergoing imprisonment in the same jail based on the same judgment. In other words, the convicts mentioned in these writ petitions are undergoing imprisonment based on the judgment in SC No.265/2018 on the file of the Special Court – Trial of Offence under SCST(POA) Act, 1989, Mannarkkad. 3. These writ petitions are filed challenging the conditions imposed in Ext.P2 orders produced in these writ petitions, by which the convicts were given ordinary leave for 30 days. The main grievance of the petitioners in these writ petitions is that there are twelve accused in the case and as per the prison rules convicts are entitled 60 days of ordinary leave in a year. One of the condition challenged in these writ petitions is that, if the Jail Superintendent should ensure that no other convicts in the same case is released on ordinary leave, when one of the convict is released. The petitioners in WP(Crl.) Nos.1310/2025 and 1307/2025 also challenged the condition to the effect that the convict shall not enter Agali Police Station limit when they are on leave. 4. This Court in a connected writ petition filed on behalf of the convicts in the same case, consider these points in detail as per judgment dated 26.09.2025 in WP(Crl.) Nos.1201, 1103 and 1120 of 2025. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the above judgment: “5. The short point raised by the petitioners is that there are 12 accused in the above case. As per the Prison Rules, convicts are entitled 60 days of ordinary leave in a year. The 1st condition imposed in these release orders (Ext.P2 in WP(Crl)Nos.1201/2025 and 1120/2025 and Ext.P1 in WP(Crl) No.1103/2025) is that, if a convict is released on ordinary leave, the Jail Superintendent should ensure that no other convict in the same case is released on ordinary leave. It is submitted that, if such a condition is imposed, the convicts will be unable to avail the eligible leave of 60 days in a year. 6. I think there is force in the above argument. It is submitted that, if such a condition is imposed, the convicts will be unable to avail the eligible leave of 60 days in a year. 6. I think there is force in the above argument. Therefore, this Court directed the learned Public Prosecutor to get instructions as to whether there is any general order passed by the Jail Authority or Government to the effect that such a condition is to be imposed while granting ordinary leave. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor, after getting instructions, fairly submitted that there is no such order. However, it is submitted that the purpose of imposing such a condition is to ensure that no law and order issues arise while the convicts are outside the jail. 8. I am of the considered opinion that, if such a condition is imposed, that will infringe the right of the convicts to get their eligible leave as per the statute. Therefore, in cases where there is more than one accused, such a condition shall not be imposed. Accordingly, condition No.(1) is liable to be deleted. 9. The 2 nd condition in the impugned orders in these cases is that convicts shall not enter the local limits of Agali Police Station. This Court has already considered this issue, in detail, in a connected case involving a convict in the same matter. Ext. P3 produced in W.P.(Crl.) No. 1103/2025 is the judgment rendered in that case. The relevant portion of Ext.P3 in W.P(Crl) No.1103/2025 is extracted below: “5. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. In a similar situation, this Court passed a judgment in WP(Crl.) No.1008/2025. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of that judgment: “4. Admittedly, the petitioner’s son was granted ordinary leave as per Ext.P1. The house of the convict is situated within the jurisdiction of Palakkad District. Now, a condition is imposed as per Ext.P1 while granting the ordinary leave to the effect that he shall not enter the jurisdiction where his house is situated and he has to reside in his relative’s house. This Court directed the Public Prosecutor to get instructions about the same. The Public Prosecutor submitted that it is a political murder and therefore, if the petitioner enters Palakkad District, there may arise some law and order problem. I cannot agree with the above stand of the Police. This Court directed the Public Prosecutor to get instructions about the same. The Public Prosecutor submitted that it is a political murder and therefore, if the petitioner enters Palakkad District, there may arise some law and order problem. I cannot agree with the above stand of the Police. Admittedly, the convict is undergoing the sentence of imprisonment for life. He is getting only a short time to spend with his family. During that period, if such a condition is imposed, that will curtail the right of a convict. A convict during the period of ordinary leave can go to his house. If there is any threat to the life of the convict, it is the duty of the State to see that his life is protected. Since the Public Prosecutor submitted that there is a threat to the life of the convict and there is chance for law and order problem, there can be a direction to the petitioner to report before the jurisdictional Station House Officer on the day on which he is entering the Palakkad District. The Station House Officer can make a surveillance to the area of the house of the convict, where he is residing till the leave period is over. With that condition, I think the condition in Ext.P1 can be lifted.” 6. The same principle is applicable herein also. The counsel for the petitioner also submitted that, after the alleged incident, the trial was completed after about 5 years. During that period, the petitioner's husband was staying in his house situated in Agali Police Station limit. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the similar direction in WP(Crl.) No.1008/2025 can be passed in this case also.” In the light of the above, I think a similar order can be passed in this case also. Accordingly, condition No.(2) is liable to be deleted.” In the light of the above judgment, I am of the considered opinion that these writ petitions can also be allowed. Therefore, these writ petitions are allowed in the following manner: 1. WP(Crl.) No.1307/2025 is allowed and condition Nos.1 and 2 in Ext.P2 order stands deleted. 2. WP(Crl.) No.1312/2025 is allowed and condition No.1 in Ext.P2 order stands deleted. 3. WP(Crl.) No.1310/2025 is allowed and condition Nos.2 and 3 in Ext.P2 order stands deleted. 4. Therefore, these writ petitions are allowed in the following manner: 1. WP(Crl.) No.1307/2025 is allowed and condition Nos.1 and 2 in Ext.P2 order stands deleted. 2. WP(Crl.) No.1312/2025 is allowed and condition No.1 in Ext.P2 order stands deleted. 3. WP(Crl.) No.1310/2025 is allowed and condition Nos.2 and 3 in Ext.P2 order stands deleted. 4. Once the convicts in WP(Crl.) Nos.1310/2025 and 1307/2025 are released based on the orders in these writ petitions, the convicts shall report before the Station House Officer, Agali Police Station, either on the day on which they were released or on the next day. 5. The convicts shall not involved in any criminal case during the period when they are on leave.