Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court

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