Karnataka High Court says jail term alone not enough for parole

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has observed that the duration of imprisonment alone cannot make a convict eligible for parole and dismissed a petition filed by a habitual offender seeking temporary release from prison.

The order was passed by a single-judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum while hearing a plea filed by convict Ambarish S. Kapadia, who had sought parole on the grounds that he had spent nearly 14 years in jail.

Kapadia, who was transferred from a Mumbai prison to Bengaluru, argued that he had already undergone long years of imprisonment and therefore deserved to be released on parole. However, the High Court rejected the contention, stating that the petitioner had been convicted in six criminal cases and had allegedly been involved in nearly 12 offences, indicating a repeated pattern of criminal behaviour.

The bench noted that the offences proved against the petitioner included serious economic crimes such as cheating, forgery and misuse of public trust. The court further observed that one of the cases fell under the jurisdiction of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), reflecting the gravity and complexity of the offences.

The High Court said the petitioner’s previous conduct did not inspire confidence to extend the benefit of temporary release on parole. It further clarified that the argument of having completed 14 years in prison could not be viewed in isolation without considering the nature of the offences and the convict’s criminal history.

“The period of sentence undergone alone does not entitle a prisoner to parole,” the bench observed while dismissing the plea.

During the hearing, counsel appearing for Kapadia submitted that the petitioner had earlier approached the High Court seeking parole. In November 2020, the court had directed authorities to consider his request. However, no action was taken after he was shifted to Ahmedabad prison in connection with a CBI case. The petitioner, therefore, requested the court to direct prison authorities to grant him parole for two months.

Opposing the plea, counsel for the CBI argued that Kapadia had been convicted in six separate cases and was therefore not eligible for parole under Rule 192(2)(1)(G) of the Karnataka Prison Rules, 1974.