Sreejith K.K vs The Superintendent on 6 July, 2026

    0
    7
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Kerala High Court

    Sreejith K.K vs The Superintendent on 6 July, 2026

    ​   ​       ​       ​    ​    ​      ​      ​
    
                                         ​
    
    
    
                                                        2026:KER:49244
    
    
    
    
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
    
                                      PRESENT
    
                THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
    
        MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2026 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1948
    
                            WP(CRL.) NO. 468 OF 2026
    
            AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC NO.370 OF 2020 OF FAST
    
    TRACK SPECIAL COURT, MANJERI
    
    PETITIONER:
    
                    SREEJITH K.K​
                    AGED 38 YEARS​
                    S/O. SREENIVASAN, KAKKUKUZHIYIL HOUSE,
                    KAKKUR POST, CHELANNUR, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673613
    
                    BY ADVS. ​
                    SHRI.SUNNY MATHEW​
                    SMT.BHAVANA K.K​
    
    RESPONDENTS:
    
        1           THE SUPERINTENDENT​
                    CENTRAL PRISON & CORRECTIONAL HOME, KANNUR,
                    PIN - 670001
    
        2           THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER​
                    KARUVARAKUNDU POLICE STATION KARUVARAKUNDU,
                     MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676523
    
        3           STATE OF KERALA​
                    REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT
                    SECRETARIATE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
    
    
                    NAVAS V.A (SR. PP)
    
         THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
    ADMISSION ON 06.07.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
    THE FOLLOWING:
         WP.(CRL).No.468 of 2026
                                                :2:
    
    
                                                                        2026:KER:49244
    ​        ​         ​       ​    ​     ​    ​      ​
    
                                        JUDGMENT
    

    ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

    This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

    SPONSORED

    of India by the petitioner, who is the convict in S.C. No. 370/2020 on the file

    of the Fast Track Special Court, Manjeri. The petitioner stands convicted for

    the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f), 376(2)(n), 354A(1)(i),

    and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 5(n) and 5(i) read with

    Section 6, 9(1) and 9(n) read with Section 10 of the Protection of Children

    from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, “the POCSO Act“). The petitioner

    is presently undergoing imprisonment at the Central Prison, Kannur.

    2. The petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of mandamus

    directing the first respondent, the Superintendent of the Central Prison,

    Kannur, to grant him emergency leave for a period of four weeks to enable

    him to look after his aged and ailing father.

    3. The case of the petitioner is that his father is suffering from

    intervertebral disc prolapse with sciatica and is bedridden. In support of the

    said contention, the petitioner has produced Ext.P1 medical certificate. It is

    contended that, on account of his father’s medical condition, the petitioner

    submitted a representation before the first respondent seeking emergency

    parole. However, the said request was rejected by Ext.P2 order dated
    WP.(CRL).No.468 of 2026
    :3:

    2026:KER:49244
    ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​
    07.03.2026. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition has been

    filed.

    4. While considering the question whether any interference is

    warranted with Ext.P2 order, it is to be noted that the petitioner stands

    convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f), 376(2)(n),

    354A(1)(i), and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 5(n) and 5(i)

    read with Section 6, 9(1) and 9(n) read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act.

    The offences for which the petitioner has been convicted are grave and

    heinous in nature, involving aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a

    minor child.

    5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

    petitioner’s father is suffering from serious ailments and requires the

    petitioner’s presence for his care and treatment. In support of the said

    submission, reliance was placed on Ext.P1 medical certificate issued by the

    Medical Officer, ESI Dispensary, Puthiyakara. However, a careful perusal of

    the said certificate does not indicate that the medical condition of the

    petitioner’s father is so critical or exceptional as to warrant the grant of

    emergency parole. The certificate merely discloses that he is undergoing

    treatment for intervertebral disc prolapse with sciatica and does not reveal

    any imminent or life-threatening medical emergency necessitating the
    WP.(CRL).No.468 of 2026
    :4:

    2026:KER:49244
    ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​
    petitioner’s immediate release.

    6. Ext.P2 order further reveals that the petitioner’s request for

    emergency parole was duly considered by the competent authority. Upon

    examining the materials placed before it, the authority found that the

    grounds urged by the petitioner were not sufficient to justify the grant of

    emergency parole and consequently rejected the request. I also find no

    reason to interfere with the order passed by the Jail Superintendent.

    Moreover, showing leniency in the matter of parole in the case of a convict

    who has been convicted of committing aggravated penetrative sexual

    assault and rape upon a minor girl is wholly unwarranted. Granting parole to

    a convict found guilty of such grave offences would send a wrong message

    to society and would be contrary to the object sought to be achieved by the

    penal law.

    7. Having regard to the gravity of the offences for which the

    petitioner stands convicted, coupled with the absence of any exceptional or

    compelling circumstances warranting the grant of emergency parole, this

    Court is of the considered view that no interference with Ext.P2 is called for.

    Grant of emergency parole, in the facts and circumstances of the present

    case, would not be justified merely on the basis of the medical certificate

    produced, particularly when the competent authority has found the grounds
    WP.(CRL).No.468 of 2026
    :5:

    2026:KER:49244
    ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​
    urged by the petitioner to be insufficient.

    Accordingly, I find no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails

    and is, accordingly, dismissed.

    
    
    ​
    
    ​        ​       ​      ​      ​      ​       ​     ​         Sd/-
    ​        ​       ​      ​                 ​         JOBIN SEBASTIAN
                                                             JUDGE
    ANS
         WP.(CRL).No.468 of 2026
                                          :6:
    
    
                                                              2026:KER:49244
    ​        ​     ​     ​    ​    ​    ​    ​
                       APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 468 OF 2026
    
    PETITIONER EXHIBITS
    
    Exhibit P1                    A TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE
                                  DATED 06.03.2026 ISSUED BY THE MEDICAL
                                  OFFICER,   ESI   DISPENSARY,  PUTHIYARA
                                  KOZHIKODE
    Exhibit P2                    TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.03.2026
                                  ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
     



    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here