Length of imprisonment alone cannot be grounds for parole, Karnataka High Court rules

The Karnataka High Court recently ruled that the duration of imprisonment, by itself, does not automatically entitle a convict to parole, especially when balanced against the convict’s criminal history and the seriousness of the offences.

Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum made the observation while rejecting a plea by a prisoner convicted in six economic offence cases.

The petitioner Ambarish S Kapadia, a resident of Mumbai, sought a direction to the authorities at Central Prison, Parappana Agrahara, Bengaluru, to grant parole for a period of two months.

The petitioner claimed that he has undergone incarceration for about 14 years and in 2020, the high court had directed the prison authorities to reconsider his application seeking parole.

It was submitted that the 2020 order could not be fructified as he was transferred to Ahmedabad Central Prison in Gujarat in a case investigated by the CBI. He filed a fresh application seeking parole in September 2025 and in the meantime shifted back to Central Prison, Bengaluru in October.

P Prasanna Kumar, special public prosecutor for the CBI, contended that the 2020 direction was not to grant parole but only to reconsider his application. While at that point in time it could not be considered owing to his transfer to another state prison, presently he is disentitled to seek parole in view of Rule 192(2)(1)(i) of the Karnataka Prison Rules, with conviction in six cases, the SPP stated.

Justice Magadum noted that the 2020 order did not confer any vested or enforceable right to parole and the direction for reconsideration was in the context of procedural infirmity in the earlier rejection.

“The petitioner stands convicted in six criminal cases, which by itself indicates a pattern of repeated criminality; The offences, as borne out from records, involve serious allegations of economic offences such as cheating, forgery and misappropriation, which affect public confidence; One of the cases is under the jurisdiction of the CBI, indicating the gravity and complexity of the offences; The petitioner’s antecedents do not inspire confidence so as to extend the benefit of temporary release,” Justice Magadum said.

The court further said, “The contention that the petitioner has undergone 14 years of imprisonment, though a relevant factor, cannot be viewed in isolation. Length of incarceration, by itself, does not entitle a convict to parole when weighed against antecedents and nature of offences.”