Madras HC grants parole to Coimbatore Blast case lifer

Must Read

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work,...

Follow us

Madras High Court on Wednesday, 14th March granted the parole application filed by petitioner M Samsunisha on behalf of her husband, Mohammed Ansari, who is currently serving a life sentence for his active role in the 1998 Coimbatore serial bomb blast case.

Facts of the case

The petitioner on her plea stated that her eldest daughter Fathima’s marriage is fixed on April 16th. Since she is frail and old it is impossible for her to carry out all the responsibilities of the impending marriage all on her own. She will also require help with marriage expenses and related costs, a matter on which she would need her husband’s support. Beside to fulfill the various customs and traditions of the said marriage her husband should be granted two months parole.

She further reiterated that her husband on previous occasions having been granted parole maintained the rule of law and has shown exemplary dedication in presenting himself to the Superintendent of Police’s office and has never violated the conditions of his parole.

Parole in India

Parole has always been an integral part of British legal system and is considered a humanitarian measure for the reformation of a prison system. It is seen as a change in perspective on the issues of human rights of prisoners and an evolutionary shift in attitudes towards crime and criminals.

The genesis of parole in Indian legal system is from the British common law reflected in Section 5(B) of the Prisons Act, 1894 which reads as follows: “Parole system means the system of releasing prisoners in Jail on parole, by suspension of their sentences in accordance with the rules for the time being in force.”

Parole is not an absolute right in Indian legal system and can be denied under certain circumstances. The prisoner has to strictly abide by the stipulated rules of his parole otherwise he is considered to be violating them and then he will be returned to his cell. A prisoner is eligible for 90 days of parole in one calendar year depending on his good behavior in prison.

The decision of the judges

Madras High Court Division Bench comprising of Justices C.T. Selvam and N. Sathish Kumar decided on the case. They conceded that there is merit in petitioner’s case and granted Mohammed Ansari a parole for 20 days starting from April 10 to 30. The judges found merit in petitioner’s contention that Mohammed Ansari is eligible for ordinary leave under Rule 22 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence rules as he has already completed 3 years of his sentence as was indicated in the rules.

The Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Coimbatore to provide the necessary security to the prisoner during his time of parole. The Court further reiterated that it is the responsibility of the Superintendent of Police to make sure that the prisoner safely returns to the prison on May 1st to continue serving his life sentence.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding that mens rea is an...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @ Balli v State. The bench...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up testing facilities in Delhi.   Facts of...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has set aside the 24.07.2019 Order...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an order restraining the manufacturing, marketing,...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -