Karnataka High Court
Credit: DH Photo
Bengaluru: The Dharwad bench of the Karnataka High Court has said that non-filing of an application for suspension of sentence and/or bail would not deprive the convict of consideration for parole. Justice Suraj Govindaraj said this while granting 60 days parole to a life convict.
The petition was filed by Eshwaramma, a resident of Ballari. It was submitted on July 20, 2023, as her son Siddanagouda was convicted to life imprisonment by a Sessions Court in Ballari. Siddanagouda had filed a criminal appeal challenging the conviction, however withdrawing the application seeking suspension of sentence and bail. Subsequently, Eshwaramma filed an application seeking release of her son on general parole for 90 days due to her illness.
On February 25, 2025, the police report stated that Siddanagouda shall not be released on parole. It was argued on behalf of the authorities concerned that Siddanagouda could file an application for suspension of sentence and/or bail in the criminal appeal, negating the need to consider parole.
The High Court referred to the judgment in Arjun vs State of Karnataka, wherein it was stated that the existence of a criminal appeal does not impede consideration of a parole application and that even if a bail application is denied, a parole application could still be entertained.
In the case at hand, the court negated the state government’s argument that an application for parole cannot be considered without there being an application for bail or suspension of sentence.
“In such cases, an application for suspension of sentence would be for suspending the entire sentence pending consideration of the criminal appeal. An application for bail would also be for grant of bail, pending consideration of the criminal appeal. Both suspension of sentence and bail are not restricted by time, whereas an application for parole is time bound and is normally granted for a period of 30, 60, or 90 days, extendable if circumstances so require. After the expiry of the parole period, the convict is required to report back to jail and continues to undergo incarceration for the remainder of the sentence,” Justice Suraj Govindaraj said.
The court also said that the authority had not taken into account the convict’s mother’s illness or the provisions under Sections 635, 636, 637, and 643 of Chapter XXXIV of the Karnataka Prison Manual. Whenever an order rejecting a parole application is issued, the scope and applicability of these sections must be clearly detailed in a reasoned order, the court added.