Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Mere Entry, Abuse Or Assault Is Not Civil Contempt – Willfulness And Dispossession Must Be Clearly Proved: Bombay High Court Magistrate Cannot Shut Eyes To Final Report After Cognizance – Supplementary Report Must Be Judicially Considered Before Framing Charges: Allahabad High Court Examination-in-Chief Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Amid Serious Doubts: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Grievous Hurt Case Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Cannot Reclaim Absolute Ownership After Letting Your Declaration Suit Fail: AP High Court Enforces Finality in Partition Appeal Death Due to Fat Embolism and Delayed Treatment Is Not Culpable Homicide: Orissa High Court Converts 30-Year-Old 304 Part-I Conviction to Grievous Hurt Fabricated Lease Cannot Be Sanctified by Consolidation Entry: Orissa High Court Dismisses 36-Year-Old Second Appeal Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Sentence Cannot Be Reduced to Two Months for Four Life-Threatening Stab Wounds: Supreme Court Restores 3-Year RI in Attempt to Murder Case Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Substitute Proof: Apex Court Reaffirms Limits of Section 106 IEA Accused at the Time of the Statement Was Not in the Custody of the Police - Discovery Statement Held Inadmissible Under Section 27: Supreme Court Failure to Explain What Happened After ‘Last Seen Together’ Becomes an Additional Link: Supreme Court Strengthens Section 106 Evidence Act Doctrine Suicide in a Pact Is Conditional Upon Mutual Participation — Survivor’s Resolve Reinforces the Act: Supreme Court Affirms Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Participation in Draw Does Not Cure Illegality: Supreme Court Rejects Estoppel in Arbitrary Flat Allotment Case Nepotism and Self-Aggrandizement Are Anathema to a Democratic System: Supreme Court Quashes Allotment of Super Deluxe Flats by Government Employees’ Welfare Society Liberty Is Not Absolute When It Becomes a Threat to Society: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Alleged ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Mastermind Magistrate’s Power Is Limited — Sessions Court May Yet Try the Case: Supreme Court Corrects High Court’s Misconception in ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Bail Order Dacoity Cannot Be Presumed, It Must Be Proved: Allahabad High Court Acquits Villagers After 43 Years, Citing ‘Glaring Lapses’ in Prosecution Case When the Judge Signs with the Prosecutor, Justice Is Already Compromised: MP High Court Quashes Tainted Medical College Enquiry Strict Rules Of Evidence Do Not Apply To Proceedings Before The Family Court: Kerala High Court Upholds Wife’s Claim For Gold And Money Commission Workers Cannot Claim Status of Civil Servants: Gujarat High Court Declines Regularization of Physically Challenged Case-Paper Operators Non-Wearing of Helmet Had a Direct Nexus with Fatal Head Injuries  : Madras High Court Upholds 25% Contributory Negligence for Helmet Violation Only a ‘Person Aggrieved’ Can Prosecute Defamation – Political Party Must Be Properly Represented: Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Rahul Gandhi

High Court Directs Consideration of Premature Release for Convict with Exemplary Conduct and Educational Qualifications Acquired in Prison

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, in a judgment dated December 6, 2022, before the Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna, has directed the consideration of a writ petition filed by Sri Satish Kumar A @ Satish Kumar Gupta, a convict presently housed in Bengaluru Central Prison, seeking premature release from prison. The petitioner, who was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), has sought consideration of his release based on his exemplary conduct in prison and the acquisition of several educational qualifications while serving his sentence.

The petitioner, who has not yet completed 14 years of imprisonment as required by law for premature release, has acquired Post Graduate Certificate Training in Cyber Law and Post Graduation Diploma in Criminal Justice from the Indira Nagar National Open University while in prison, as supported by certificates appended to the petition. The petitioner has also received several certificates of appreciation from the Superintendent of Prison, which are matters of record and not in dispute.

The imprisonment certificate of the petitioner shows that he has completed close to 13 years and 2 months in prison as of the date of the judgment, and according to the learned Additional Government Advocate, he has to wait for another 10 months to complete 14 years before he can seek premature release.

However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied on several judgments of the Supreme Court where detenus have been released before completing 14 years or the term of their sentence based on the qualifications they have acquired during their imprisonment and their conduct in prison. The Court has directed the respondents, including the State of Karnataka, the Director General of Police, Prisons and Correctional Services, and the Chief Superintendent of Central Prison, to place the petitioner's case before the Committee for his premature release from prison and to furnish a report that records the petitioner's exemplary conduct and educational qualifications acquired in prison, to arrive at a just and fair conclusion. The Court has issued the direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus, a judicial order compelling a public authority to perform its legal duty.

SRI SATISH KUMAR vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Latest Legal News