LAW Courses
LAW Courses

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Key Takeaways

  • The Karnataka High Court refused to extend the parole leave of a life convict suffering from COVID-19 disease.
  • Principle of criminal jurisprudence that release of a convict on parole or furlough cannot be sought as a matter of right

Background

  • The petitioner was convicted for the offences punishable u/s 302,120B, 324, 341, 427 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860.
  • He was released on parole on 19.03.2021 for a period of 30-days, in terms of Standing Orders of Director General of Police, Prisons & Correctional Services, and by Chief Superintendent of Central Prison.
  • He got an extension of the parole for the same period vide order dated 05.08.2021; similarly, he secured a second extension vide order dated 31.08.2021 for another spell of 30 days which came to an end on 05.10.2021.
  • He made a representation dated 28.09.2021 before Respondent 1 for extension of parole for another 60 days, on the ground of COVID-related health issues in support, which came to be rejected, and thus he approached the court.

Observation

  • A single bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit dismissed the petition filed by Rashi Kumara who had been on parole leave since March 18
  • The court junked the contention of the accused that the jails are overcrowded and therefore, his case be considered sympathetically.
  • The petitioner was ordered to report back to the jail on or before 11.10.2021, 3.30 pm at the latest.

Questions

  • What are your views on this?
  • What is Section 120B of the IPC?

Share your views in the comments section below.

"Loved reading this piece by Ria Goyal?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"




Tags :

  Views  26  Report



Comments
img
Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query