Vague law-and-order fears cannot alone deny a convict ordinary leave, Kerala High Court rules; police must manage security risks

The petitioner challenged Ext.P7, by which the second respondent rejected his son’s application for ordinary leave under Rule 397 of the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Rules, 2014.

The rejection relied on adverse police and probation reports.

The petitioner argued that similarly situated co-accused had received ordinary leave and that the reports did not satisfy Rule 397(h).

The State maintained that release could cause a law-and-order situation, relying on the reports’ references to local concerns and the convict’s alleged gang associations.

1. Whether adverse police and probation reports, based on the materials in this case, justified rejecting the convict’s application for ordinary leave under Rule 397.

2. Whether the reports complied with the considerations prescribed by Rule 397(h).

Rule 397(h) requires the police report to address whether release may cause a law-and-order problem, particularly affecting the safety of the convict or others; whether the convict may abscond; and whether the convict behaved badly during any earlier leave.

The Jail Superintendent must address the convict’s conduct in prison, character and past history, while the Probation Officer’s report must address the convict’s family and social background and social acceptance during leave.

A mere possibility of a law-and-order situation, unsupported by sufficient facts and cogent material, cannot by itself justify denying ordinary leave, which the Court described as an entitlement upon expiry of the period prescribed by Rule 397.

The Court followed Rama v. State of Kerala, 2023 KHC 851, which held that the police’s duty to maintain law and order is not, without more, a ground to deny leave under Rule 397.

The police report referred to comments by unidentified persons without establishing their connection to the convict or the locality, and did not show an independently assessed, substantiated threat to law and order.

Its references to the convict’s friends’ alleged criminal conduct also lacked material showing a live link to the convict or a resulting risk during leave.

The probation report focused on alleged gang membership and the circumstances of the murder conviction, rather than the family and social background and social acceptance contemplated by Rule 397(h); those allegations were also absent from the police report.

The Court therefore found both reports flawed and held that Ext.P7, which relied on them, could not stand.

It directed the second respondent to grant ordinary leave to the petitioner’s son, convict prisoner No. 181/2024, subject to usual conditions and for a period fixed in accordance with Rule 397(b).

The Station House Officer, Anthikkad Police Station, was directed to ensure that the release caused no law-and-order situation and, if necessary, to arrange surveillance until the convict returned to prison.