‘Can get parole for own wedding’: Karnataka High Court allows murder convict 15 days
The convict’s mother and his prospective bride had challenged the refusal of emergency parole by the prison superintendent and sought 15 days’ release for his marriage. (AI-generated image)
The Karnataka High Court has allowed a man serving a life sentence for murder to leave prison for 15 days for his marriage, holding that a convict’s own wedding can also fall within the reasons for granting parole. The court said it would be “unreasonable” to exclude a convict’s wedding from the reasons for parole, while making the release subject to conditions.
Justice B M Shyam Prasad was hearing a petition filed by the convict’s mother and his prospective bride. They had challenged the May 9, 2025 decision of the superintendent of Central Prison, Parappana Agrahara, Bengaluru, refusing emergency parole to the murder convict.
“The question is whether the convict must be admitted to parole for solemnization of his own marriage. This Court is of the view that this reason must also fall within the fold of the reasons for which a convict is admitted to parole and to hold otherwise would be unreasonable,” the court said on September 24.
The case arose after the prison authorities rejected the request for emergency parole, saying it could be granted only in specific circumstances, including the marriage of a son, daughter, brother or sister. The petitioners challenged the refusal and sought 15 days’ release for the convict’s marriage.
Can’t exclude own wedding from reasons for parole
Justice Prasad noted that the undisputed position was that the convict could be admitted to general parole to attend a sibling’s marriage, among other reasons. The court then considered whether the same principle could apply when the convict himself was getting married.
Justice B M Shyam Prasad observed that no conditions were pointed out to refuse parole to the convict.
It held that the convict’s own marriage “must also fall within the fold of the reasons” for which he/she could be admitted to parole. The other conditions governing parole would still have to be satisfied, the judge added.
The ruling, hence, did not mean that every prisoner seeking to marry would automatically be entitled to temporary release but that the convict’s own wedding could not simply be excluded from the reasons for considering parole.
Story continues below this ad
Court considers pending proceedings
The imprisonment certificate dated January 16, 2025, also referred to other pending criminal proceedings against the convict. Documents relating to those proceedings were placed before the high court in support of the petitioners’ contention that they could not be used to refuse parole.
The court noted that the convict had already been granted bail in the other pending cases, either by the high court or the sessions court, while in one of the proceedings, his bail was subject to submitting surety in cash. The high court took note of these orders while examining whether the pending proceedings could prevent the grant of parole.
It then observed that no other conditions had been pointed out which could constitute a reason to refuse emergency parole to the convict. The high court then allowed the petition and directed the prison authorities to grant the convict 15 days of general parole, even though the petition had challenged the refusal of emergency parole. The parole was also subject to the terms contemplated under the Karnataka Prisons and Correctional Services Manual, 2021.
The court also imposed specific safeguards on the man’s release, including that the convict must mark his attendance with the jurisdictional police every three days. He must also not leave the jurisdiction of the concerned police station without the express permission of the station house officer (SHO).
Vineet Upadhyay is an Assistant Editor with The Indian Express (Digital), where he leads specialized coverage of the Indian judicial system. Expertise Specialized Legal Authority: Vineet has spent the better part of his career analyzing the intricacies of the law. His expertise lies in "demystifying" judgments from the Supreme Court of India, various High Courts, and District Courts. His reporting covers a vast spectrum of legal issues, including: Constitutional & Civil Rights: Reporting on landmark rulings regarding privacy, equality, and state accountability. Criminal Justice & Enforcement: Detailed coverage of high-profile cases involving the Enforcement Directorate (ED), NIA, and POCSO matters. Consumer Rights & Environmental Law: Authoritative pieces on medical negligence compensation, environmental protection (such as the "living person" status of rivers), and labor rights. Over a Decade of Professional Experience: Prior to joining The Indian Express, he served as a Principal Correspondent/Legal Reporter for The Times of India and held significant roles at The New Indian Express. His tenure has seen him report from critical legal hubs, including Delhi and Uttarakhand. ... Read More
KioskNews shows a cleaned-up reading view extracted from the publisher’s page — the original always lives on their site, not ours.