The Kerala High Court has affirmed that a prisoner’s consistent good conduct and recommendation by the District Probation Officer outweigh speculative objections from police authorities in parole decisions. This judgment reinforces the rehabilitative purpose of prison leave and sets a clear standard for evaluating eligibility based on conduct, not suspicion.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Rajvati Devi, mother of Convict No.555/23, Bachan Rishi, filed this writ petition seeking ordinary leave or parole for a period of thirty days for her son, who is incarcerated at the Central Prison and Correctional Home, Thavannur, Malappuram District. The prisoner had previously applied for leave, which was rejected by the second respondent (Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services) on the grounds of objections raised by the District Police Chief, Katihar, Bihar, and the fourth respondent (Superintendent, Central Prison).
Key Facts
- The prisoner, Bachan Rishi, is serving a sentence arising from a conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC, as per Exhibit P1 (judgment dated 27.11.2023 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vatakara).
- He has been in custody since his conviction and has maintained a record of perfect conduct during incarceration.
- No disciplinary action has ever been taken against him during his imprisonment.
- The District Probation Officer, Katihar, Bihar, submitted a formal recommendation in favor of granting ordinary leave.
- The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, in Ext.P3 order dated 23.02.2026, acknowledged the prisoner’s satisfactory behavior and noted that, but for the objections of the District Police Chief and the fourth respondent, the prisoner was otherwise eligible for leave.
- The District Police Chief, Katihar, opposed the leave solely on the ground of apprehension that the prisoner might abscond, without providing any concrete evidence or prior history of misconduct.
- The petitioner had previously filed W.P.(Crl.) No.59/2026, which was disposed of by this Court on 17.02.2026 (Exhibit P2), directing the second respondent to decide on the leave application within two weeks of receiving a certified copy of the judgment.
- The second respondent rejected the application on 23.02.2026, relying on the objections of the District Police Chief and the fourth respondent.
Procedural History
- 27.11.2023: Conviction and sentencing of Bachan Rishi by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vatakara.
- 17.02.2026: Kerala High Court disposed of W.P.(Crl.) No.59/2026, directing the Director General of Prisons to decide on the leave application within two weeks.
- 23.02.2026: Second respondent issued Ext.P3 order rejecting the leave application based on objections from District Police Chief, Katihar, and Superintendent, Central Prison.
- 05.04.2026: Writ Petition No.644/2026 filed before the Kerala High Court.
- 19.06.2026: Hearing and judgment delivered by Justice G. Girish.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner: The petitioner contended that the prisoner’s unblemished conduct, coupled with the positive recommendation of the District Probation Officer, rendered him eligible for leave under the principles of rehabilitation and incentive-based correctional policy. The objections of the District Police Chief were speculative, unsupported by evidence, and contrary to the spirit of Section 5 of the Prisons Act, 1894 and relevant prison manuals.
For the Respondents: The State, through the Public Prosecutor, did not dispute the prisoner’s conduct but defended the rejection on the basis of the District Police Chief’s apprehension regarding potential absconding, citing security concerns and jurisdictional limitations in monitoring a prisoner from Bihar while incarcerated in Kerala.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought an order directing the respondents to grant thirty days of ordinary leave to Convict No.555/23, Bachan Rishi, subject to reasonable conditions to ensure compliance and public safety.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the mere apprehension of absconding by a distant police authority, without any prior misconduct or concrete threat, can override a prisoner’s entitlement to ordinary leave based on proven good conduct and a positive recommendation from the District Probation Officer.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on the principle that prison leave is a rehabilitative tool, not a privilege to be withheld on speculative grounds. Citing State of Haryana v. Bhagwan Das and K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, the petitioner argued that the right to rehabilitation is integral to the right to life under Article 21. The absence of any disciplinary record and the explicit recommendation by the District Probation Officer established a prima facie entitlement. The police objection, being extraneous and uncorroborated, could not serve as a valid basis for denial.
For the Respondent
The State contended that the District Police Chief, as the local authority responsible for law and order in Katihar, had a legitimate interest in preventing potential flight, especially since the prisoner’s family and social ties were located outside Kerala. The State argued that prison authorities must defer to local police assessments in matters of public safety, even if such assessments are not substantiated by evidence.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the statutory and constitutional framework governing prison leave. It emphasized that the primary objective of granting ordinary leave is rehabilitation and resocialisation, as recognized in the Model Prison Manual, 2016, and affirmed in multiple precedents including State of Maharashtra v. Mohanlal.
"The denial of regular leave to the son of the petitioner upon the mere apprehension of the additional 8th respondent about the chances of the above Convict absconding, cannot be justified."
The Court noted that the prisoner had no history of misconduct, no prior attempt to abscond, and no adverse entry in his prison record. The District Probation Officer, who is statutorily mandated to assess reintegration readiness, had positively recommended leave. The Court held that the District Police Chief’s apprehension, while understandable, was speculative and insufficient to override these objective indicators of suitability.
The Court further observed that the respondents failed to demonstrate any legal provision empowering them to deny leave based solely on the opinion of an external police authority with no supervisory role over the prisoner’s conduct in prison. The Court rejected the notion that jurisdictional distance from the prisoner’s home state could justify denial of a constitutionally grounded benefit.
The Court concluded that the balance of interests favored granting leave, provided appropriate safeguards were imposed to mitigate the risk of non-return.
The Verdict
The writ petition was allowed. The respondents 2 to 4 are directed to grant thirty days of ordinary leave to Convict No.555/23, Bachan Rishi, subject to the following conditions:
i) The prisoner shall report before the District Probation Officer, Katihar, every Saturday during the leave period. ii) The District Probation Officer shall record attendance and release him immediately after each appearance. iii) In case of non-appearance, the Probation Officer shall immediately notify the District Police Chief, Katihar, who shall inform respondents 2 to 4. iv) Any violation of these conditions shall result in immediate cancellation of leave and return to prison.
The Registry shall communicate this judgment to the additional respondents 8 and 9.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Good Conduct Overrides Speculative Objections
- Practitioners must now argue that a prisoner’s unblemished record and probation officer’s recommendation are decisive factors in leave applications.
- Police objections based on general apprehension, without evidence of flight risk or prior violations, are legally insufficient to deny leave.
Probation Officer’s Role Is Statutorily Significant
- The recommendation of the District Probation Officer carries substantial weight under the Prisons Act, 1894, and the Model Prison Manual.
- Courts will treat such recommendations as objective assessments of rehabilitation readiness, not mere suggestions.
Conditions Can Mitigate Risk Without Denial
-
Courts are willing to impose tailored reporting conditions (e.g., weekly check-ins) to address security concerns, rather than outright denial.
-
This approach aligns with international standards on prisoner rehabilitation and reduces recidivism.
-
Always request the prisoner’s conduct report and probation officer’s recommendation before filing a leave application.
-
If police oppose, demand written reasons with supporting evidence - mere apprehension is not a valid ground.
-
Propose specific, enforceable conditions in your petition to preempt judicial concerns about risk.
