Karnataka HC grants 90-day parole for murder convict to look after agriculture

The Karnataka High Court has granted a 90-day parole to a man named Chandra, a murder convict serving a life sentence, reported The Times of India. The court allowed the convict to manage agricultural activities on his family’s farmland in Siddevarahalli village in the Ramanagara district.
Also Read – Bengaluru Police recover stolen Apple Airpods within 20 minutes after compliant
According to the report, the court overturned an earlier decision by Bengaluru’s Central Prison superintendent, who had denied Chandra’s parole request. The judge directed the prison authorities to release him on parole, emphasising that Chandra must not engage in unlawful activities during his 90-day parole. Additionally, the convict must report to the local police station every week on the first day.
Chandra, who has been in jail for over 11 years, was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. He had applied for parole, citing the absence of a male member in his family to oversee the family’s agricultural operations. However, the prison superintendent rejected his request on September 23, 2024. Following this, Chandra appealed to the High Court for relief.
Also Read – ‘Life can be cruel’: Karnataka IPS officer’s classmate pens emotional note after 26-year-old dies in accident
Justice Hemant Chandanagoudar, while granting parole, observed that Chandra had never been granted parole before and had established a valid case for his release. “The petitioner has been in custody for more than 11 years. Given the facts and circumstances, a prima facie case for parole has been made,” the judge noted, said the report.
The High Court also allowed the jail superintendent to impose standard conditions to ensure the convict’s return to custody after parole. The judge further stated that parole would be automatically revoked if Chandra violated any of the conditions, including the requirement to mark his weekly attendance with the jurisdictional police.
This decision underscores the court’s consideration of individual circumstances while balancing judicial custody requirements and the convict’s familial responsibilities.