Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction When Death Is Caused by an Unforeseeable Forest Fire, Criminal Prosecution Cannot Be Sustained Without Proof of Rashness, Negligence, or Knowledge: Supreme Court Proof of Accident Alone is Not Enough – Claimants Must Prove Involvement of Offending Vehicle Under Section 166 MV Act: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal for Compensation in Fatal Road Accident Case Income Tax | Search Means Search, Not ‘Other Person’: Section 153C Collapses When the Assessee Himself Is Searched: Karnataka High Court Draws a Clear Red Line

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