Karnataka High Court Grants Parole to Convict for Family Bonding; Quashes Refusal Order
In a significant judgment, the Karnataka High Court today allowed the writ petition filed by Sri Venkatesh, a convict lodged at the Open Air Jail, Devanahalli, granting him a 30-day parole. Justice K. V. Aravind, presiding over the case, emphasized the importance of family bonding and maintaining social relations, while quashing the previous refusal order.
The case, titled Sri Venkatesh vs The State Of Karnataka, revolved around the petitioner’s request to be released on parole. Venkatesh, convicted under Sections 498A and 302 of the IPC, had appealed for parole to meet his wife and newborn child, citing the need for familial bonding and attending to family matters.
In his order, Justice Aravind highlighted, “Refusal of parole to provide the petitioner an opportunity to meet his wife and new-born child… would deprive him to maintain social relations with his family and deal with family matters.” This observation underscores the court’s recognition of the rehabilitation aspect of parole, particularly in maintaining family ties.
Venkatesh had previously been granted parole in October 2021, which he complied with, returning to the authorities post the parole period. His conduct during this period was noted as satisfactory. The court found the reasons against his current parole application, mainly based on community safety concerns, as vague and unsubstantiated.
Justice Aravind’s ruling also delved into the legal framework provided by the Karnataka Prisons Act, 1963, and the Karnataka Prisons and Correctional Services Manual, 2021. These statutes highlight the importance of parole in maintaining continuity with family life and dealing with family matters, which played a crucial role in the court’s decision.
The court’s decision has been welcomed by the petitioner’s counsel, Sri Vinay Kuttappa, as a humane gesture that acknowledges the importance of family bonding and rehabilitation of convicts. The State, represented by Smt. Spoorthy Hegde N., HCGP, had argued against the parole citing no substantial grounds for its extension.
This ruling sets a precedent in acknowledging the rehabilitative aspects of parole, balancing the convict’s rights and societal safety concerns, and highlights the judiciary’s role in upholding the principles of justice and rehabilitation.
Date of Decision: 21st December 2023
SRI VENKATESH VS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
