<p>Bengaluru: The High Court of Karnataka has refused to entertain the petition filed by serial rapist and murderer B A Umesh Reddy, seeking 30 days’ parole. The court observed that it is not that in every case, one should be granted parole for the asking.</p>.<p>At present in Parappana Agrahara Central prison in Bengaluru, following his transfer from solitary confinement at the Hindalga prison in Belagavi, Umesh Reddy had requested for parole to spend time with his ailing mother.</p>.<p>The apex court in its November 4, 2022 order had commuted his death sentence to the life imprisonment with a condition that he would undergo a minimum sentence of 30 years and if any application is filed for remission, it would be considered only after the actual sentence of 30 years.</p>.<p>Umesh Reddy approached the court after the prison authorities rejected his application. The state government argued that the petitioner is a dreaded criminal and committed series of rapes and murders.</p>.Rape survivor shot at by rapist, aides in Rajasthan; three arrested.<p>Justice M Nagaprasanna cited the apex court’s decision in Asfaq vs State of Rajasthan case and said that the top court had held that while granting parole or furlough ingrained in the reformation theory of sentencing, other competing public interest also has to be kept in mind, while deciding as to whether in a particular case parole is to be granted or not.</p>.<p>The court also observed that the December 8, 2023, report of the prison authorities on the application filed by the petitioner also stated that in the event he is released on parole, the past enmity against him can become a threat to his life.</p>.<p>“The petitioner has two brothers who would take care of the mother or even the repair of the house, which is said to be in a dilapidated condition. Both the reasons projected by the petitioner suffer from want of tenability. It is not that in every case, one should be granted parole for asking. Both sides of the coin will have to be considered, one, the necessity for grant of parole ingrained in the reformation theory of sentencing, the other, competing public interest. Particularly in cases where the convicts are undergoing life imprisonment, the other side of the coin cannot be ignored,” the court said.</p>
<p>Bengaluru: The High Court of Karnataka has refused to entertain the petition filed by serial rapist and murderer B A Umesh Reddy, seeking 30 days’ parole. The court observed that it is not that in every case, one should be granted parole for the asking.</p>.<p>At present in Parappana Agrahara Central prison in Bengaluru, following his transfer from solitary confinement at the Hindalga prison in Belagavi, Umesh Reddy had requested for parole to spend time with his ailing mother.</p>.<p>The apex court in its November 4, 2022 order had commuted his death sentence to the life imprisonment with a condition that he would undergo a minimum sentence of 30 years and if any application is filed for remission, it would be considered only after the actual sentence of 30 years.</p>.<p>Umesh Reddy approached the court after the prison authorities rejected his application. The state government argued that the petitioner is a dreaded criminal and committed series of rapes and murders.</p>.Rape survivor shot at by rapist, aides in Rajasthan; three arrested.<p>Justice M Nagaprasanna cited the apex court’s decision in Asfaq vs State of Rajasthan case and said that the top court had held that while granting parole or furlough ingrained in the reformation theory of sentencing, other competing public interest also has to be kept in mind, while deciding as to whether in a particular case parole is to be granted or not.</p>.<p>The court also observed that the December 8, 2023, report of the prison authorities on the application filed by the petitioner also stated that in the event he is released on parole, the past enmity against him can become a threat to his life.</p>.<p>“The petitioner has two brothers who would take care of the mother or even the repair of the house, which is said to be in a dilapidated condition. Both the reasons projected by the petitioner suffer from want of tenability. It is not that in every case, one should be granted parole for asking. Both sides of the coin will have to be considered, one, the necessity for grant of parole ingrained in the reformation theory of sentencing, the other, competing public interest. Particularly in cases where the convicts are undergoing life imprisonment, the other side of the coin cannot be ignored,” the court said.</p>
