Convict Remained Untraced For 40 Years & Took Government Job: Telangana High Court Directs Constitution Of Task Force To Track Parole Prisoners
The High Court underscored that the incident reflected poorly on jail authorities and could embolden others to adopt similar methods of overstaying and deception.
The Telangana High Court has directed the State authorities to frame guidelines and machinery to track prisoners released on parole, after noting that a life convict remained untraced for over 40 years after parole, secured a Government job, and served till superannuation.
The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by the wife of a life convict challenging the punishment imposed on him after he was apprehended following an overstay of 40 years, 1 month and 28 days. The punishment included forfeiture of remission and denial of parole and furlough for three years.
A Bench of Justice Tangirala Madhavi Devi observed: “Having regard to the peculiar facts of this case and to ensure that such cases do not recur, this Court deems it fit and proper to direct the respondents No.1 and 2 to frame such guidelines and machinery as necessary to keep track of persons granted parole report back to the prison on expiry of the parole period. This instance of not being able to track a prisoner for a period of forty years during which, he gets appointed to a Government job and renders service without interruption till he attains the age of superannuation reflects poorly on the attempts of the jail authorities in keeping track of the prisoner when they are granted parole without guards and would embolden many others to adopt such methods of overstayal and deception. Therefore, the respondent authorities are directed to constitute a Special Task Forces to keep strict vigilance on the prisoners who are on parole.”
Advocate Basheer Riyaz appeared for the petitioner, while Government Pleader for Home Mahesh Raje appeared for the respondents.
Background
The petitioner’s husband was convicted for offences under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. He was released on parole, which was later extended, but he failed to surrender after the parole period expired.
The petitioner argued that the authorities had not taken steps for decades despite the convict being available in Telangana and having worked as a Government teacher before retiring from service. She also relied on his medical condition and sought setting aside of the punishment so that parole could be sought.
The State opposed the plea, submitting that the convict had overstayed parole for more than 40 years, was later apprehended by a Special Task Force team, and had undergone only 6 months and 7 days of imprisonment against a life sentence.
Court’s Observations
The Court found that the convict had not returned voluntarily after parole and was apprehended only after a Special Task Force was constituted for that purpose.
The Court observed: “It is clear that the convict has intentionally evaded the arrest and his contention that he was appointed as a Government teacher and worked as such till the date of superannuation also goes to prove that he has intentionally not disclosed about the conviction and has obtained the Government job by deception.”
Rejecting the challenge to the punishment, the Court noted that a show cause notice had been issued and the convict was heard before the order was passed.
The Court held: “The respondents have therefore, given a show cause notice to the petitioner’s husband before imposing the punishment and the punishment of forfeiture of parole for a period of three years is imposed after hearing the petitioner’s husband.”
It added: “Therefore, there is no violation of principles of natural justice or any violation of any Telangana Prisons Rules and in fact, the petitioner’s husband is liable to be proceeded against for deception and obtaining the Government job by deception.”
The Court also declined to interfere on medical grounds, noting the State’s submission regarding treatment facilities in prison.
The Court observed: “The medical conditions stated by the petitioner cannot be a ground to release the petitioner’s husband on parole, as the medical facilities are available in the Central Prison, Cherlapalli, as stated by respondent No.3 in the counter affidavit.”
Conclusion
The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the punishment imposed on the convict. It directed the authorities to frame guidelines and machinery to monitor prisoners released on parole and to constitute Special Task Forces for strict vigilance over such prisoners.
There was no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous petitions were closed.
Cause Title: Sandela Charamma v. State of Telangana and Others