Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court extended the parole period of the convict by an additional week until 15 October 2024 due to his deteriorating health and ongoing hospitalization. The court also directed the State of Gujarat to investigate the authenticity of the medical certificate submitted to justify his continued stay outside custody.
Facts:
The petitioner was released on parole by the court’s order dated 24 June 2024 for a period of ninety days, which expired on 23 September 2024. The parole was granted on the grounds of health issues. Instead of returning to custody after the parole period, the petitioner remained hospitalized due to his deteriorating health.
Issues:
- Whether the parole period should be extended in light of the petitioner’s ongoing health concerns.
- Whether the medical certificate submitted, claiming the need for further hospitalization, is genuine.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the convict could not return to custody due to severe health complications. A medical certificate issued by Dr. Kushal Shah of Pratham Hospital, Nadiad, dated 30 September 2024, was submitted to the court to substantiate the claim. The counsel further contended that the convict was still in critical condition and required further medical attention.
Respondent’s Arguments:
The counsel representing the State of Gujarat requested time to verify the authenticity of the medical certificate submitted by the petitioner. Concerns were raised about whether the date of issue and the contents of the certificate genuinely reflect the convict’s health status.
Analysis of the Law:
Ordinarily, once the parole period ends, the convict is required to surrender and return to custody. However, the court is vested with the discretion to extend parole if genuine health issues necessitate continued medical care. The court emphasized the need for strict scrutiny in cases where the medical grounds are cited to extend parole, to prevent potential misuse.
Precedent Analysis:
The court referred to the principles established in earlier cases concerning the extension of parole on medical grounds, highlighting the importance of verifying the authenticity of documents submitted in such circumstances.
Court’s Reasoning:
The Supreme Court noted that while the petitioner’s health condition warranted temporary relief, there was a need for caution. The court ordered an inquiry into the genuineness of the medical certificate, as misuse of parole under the guise of health issues undermines the integrity of the legal process.
Conclusion:
The court extended the parole period for one week, keeping the convict in the hospital until 15 October 2024. The matter was listed for further hearing on 14 October 2024, by which date the State is expected to submit a report regarding the authenticity of the medical certificate.
Implications:
The ruling underscores the judiciary’s approach to balancing humanitarian concerns with the need to prevent potential abuse of parole provisions. The decision to extend the parole, coupled with an order for an inquiry, reflects the court’s commitment to upholding both justice and procedural integrity
