the goan I network
PANAJI
The Bombay High Court at Goa has pulled up the Inspector General of Prisons and the Superintendent of Police for “mechanically rejecting the applications for parole and furlough” sent in by convicts and other prisoners.
The High Court has asked the Inspector General of Prisons to file an affidavit within two weeks informing the court as to the details/statistics of the applications for parole/furlough entertained by him from the date of his assuming charge. The details/statistics of the parole/furlough granted by him and rejected by him during his tenure.
The court has prima facie found that Rajendra D Mirajkar, Inspector General of Prisons has been mechanically rejecting the applications for parole and furlough.
“Prima facie we find that the Inspector General of Prisons is shirking responsibility by virtually abdicating his discretion to the dictates of the Superintendent of Police. Again, we find that even the reports of the Superintendent of Police are issued in mechanical manner, which again, are prima facie indicative of shirking of responsibility,” the High Court noted.
“The circumstance that the prisoners have been released in the past on several occasions on parole or furlough and they have neither absconded nor breached any of the terms of conditions of parole or furlough are completely ignored and applications are routinely rejected on the alleged basis that there is possibility of abscondence,” the High Court said.
“We find that this approach on the part of the Superintendent of Police or Inspector General of Prisons who hold high ranking posts, is not prima facie proper and may even amount to abdication if not shirking of duties and responsibilities,” the High Court observed.
The High Court noticed that several petitions are instituted by the prisoners, who are not in a position to engage an advocate and question such rejection orders.
“In most cases, we find that the learned Public Prosecutor or Addl Public Prosecutor adopt a very fair approach and state that such orders will be withdrawn or concede to quashing of such orders,” the High Court noted.
