Overstaying no ground for not considering premature release:HC

A detenu's act of overstaying by a day than the time allowed under parole need not be the ground for not considering his premature release, the Madras High Court said today.
"The earlier orders passed by the Government and the Courts found that when the detenu has satisfied all other terms and conditions contemplated under the Government order meant for premature release, overstay for a day by him can't be put against him for considering premature release," a division bench, comprising Justices S Rajeswaran and P N Prakash said.
The bench gave the order while allowing a Habeas Corpus Petition (HCP) filed by the wife of a life convict.

The detenu was convicted by a court here and sentenced to life imprisonment and is now lodged in Central Prison, Puzhal near Chennai.
On his request, he was granted parole to visit his ailing mother for three days on November 11, 2006 and should have returned to prison after on November 14. But due to circumstances beyond his control, he returned only the next day.
The man completed eight years of actual imprisonment as a life convict on September 15, 2008.

His wife pointed out that the state government had on the eve of centenary birth celebrations of Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C N Annadurai, passed a Government Order in September 2008 stating that life convicts who have completed seven years actual imprisonment as on September 15 and in case of life convicts aged beyond 60 years of age should have completed five years would be eligible for premature release.

However, the detenu was not considered so far despite her representation for premature release of her husband as per the GO, she said.
Hence she filed HCP to direct the authorities concerned to treat her husband as being eligible for premature release as he has satisfied the terms and conditions of the GO.
The bench referred to previous orders passed by the High Court and government in which identical question arose and said the petitioner's husband is eligible for premature release and his stay a day more than the permissible time of parole cannot be a ground for his non-release.

The bench then directed the authorities concerned to set the detenu free unless his detention was required in connection with any other case.
The state Government through its GO had released 1405 convicts that year.