Section 9 A&C Act Relief Available Until Award Is Actually Enforced, Even After It Becomes Enforceable: Telangana High Court Matrimonial Litigations Must Not Degenerate Into Contests Of Mutual Humiliation By Weaponising Private Images: Delhi High Court Unarmed Witnesses’ Inaction Against Armed Assailants Justified By Instinct Of Self-Preservation; Testimony Cannot Be Discarded: Allahabad High Court Ocular Evidence Outweighs Motive: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based On Reliable Eyewitness Testimony Arrest Illegal If Written 'Grounds Of Arrest' Not Furnished To Accused; Communication Of Mere 'Reasons' Insufficient: Bombay High Court Absence Of Territorial Jurisdiction No Ground To Quash FIR At Threshold If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Calcutta High Court Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua Non For PC Act Conviction; Voice Recordings Inadmissible Without Sec 65-B Certificate: Chhattisgarh HC Section 91 IEA | Disposition Of Immovable Property Cannot Be Proved By Oral Evidence If Written Document Not Produced: Delhi High Court NRC Legacy Data Extracts Inadmissible Without Section 65B Certificate; PAN Card & EPIC Not Proof Of Citizenship: Gauhati High Court Testimony Of Injured Witness Entitled To Great Weight; Minor Contradictions Due To Lapse Of Memory Cannot Discard Prosecution Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Kerala High Court Remands Teacher Seniority Dispute For Fresh Consideration To Verify If Senior Teacher Relinquished Promotion Claim Receipt Of DNA Report After Testimony Doesn't Automatically Confer Right To Recall Witness For Further Cross-Examination: Madhya Pradesh High Court Possession Of 'Bhang' Not An Offence Under NDPS Act, Specific Definition Excludes It: Jharkhand High Court Acquits Man Trial Court Cannot Reject Request For Handwriting Expert Merely Because Signatures Are On Photocopies: Punjab & Haryana 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