Application For Parole Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because An Appeal Against Conviction Is Pending: Karnataka High Court

Justice Suraj Govindaraj had to consider whether an application for parole can be rejected solely because an appeal has been filed or a bail application was pending consideration. The Court observed:

“It is only when a bail application is rejected, the question of considering a parole application would arise. Thus, even where a bail application is rejected, the application for parole would have to be considered in terms of the applicable law and if no grounds are made out entitling the applicant to be released on parole, the said application could be rejected, otherwise, the same would have to be allowed.”

The petitioner was convicted in a criminal case and is currently serving a life imprisonment sentence. The petitioner had filed an appeal and the bail application in the same matter had been rejected.

The petitioner has been in custody since April 06, 2018 and applied for parole on December 07, 2022 for various reasons. However, the parole application was rejected on March 15, 2023 due to the pending criminal appeal and bail application. The petitioner is challenging this rejection before the Court.

Advocate Girish M.Patil appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Shivakumar R. Tengli (AAG) appeared for the Respondents.

The petitioner's counsel argued that since the petitioner has already exercised the right to file an appeal, the authorities cannot deny parole based solely on the fact that the appeal has been filed. The counsel sought the quashing of the endorsement and requested the court to direct the authorities to release the petitioner on parole.

On the other hand, Advocate representing the respondents pointed out that as per the sub-rule (2), Clause (j), sub-clause (i) of Rule 191 of the Karnataka Prison Rules, 1974, an applicant was ineligible for parole consideration if there is a pending case before the court. Furthermore, the rule was amended on May 16, 2022 to include "bail applications" as well. Based on these grounds, the counsel argued that the rejection of the parole application aligns with the rules, and the petition lacks valid grounds for relief.

The relevant rule, Clause (j) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 191 of the Karnataka Prison Rules, was amended to include "bail applications" as a factor for considering parole eligibility. However, the Court held that the term "cases" in the rule refers to cases other than the one in which the accused has already been convicted. Therefore, an appeal from a conviction cannot be considered a pending case for the purpose of parole application rejection.

“the word "cases" which is used in sub-clause (i) of clause (j) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 191 of Rules 1974, can only mean cases other than the case where the accused has been convicted and would not include an appeal from the case where an order of conviction is passed.”

Additionally, the Court noted that while the pendency of a bail application may be a relevant consideration, if the bail application was rejected, the parole application must be assessed according to the applicable law. If no grounds were present to warrant parole, it can be rejected; otherwise, it should be allowed.

In conclusion, the Court partly allowed the writ petition, quashed the specific endorsement, and instructed the respondent to reconsider the parole application based on the court's observations and in accordance with the law within fifteen days. The Court emphasized that its decision pertained to the eligibility to file an application for parole and not the entitlement of the petitioner for parole. A copy of the order was asked to be forwarded to the Director General of Police for distribution to the relevant authorities.

Cause Title: Arjun v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

Click here to read/download the Order