A murder convict serving a life sentence has been granted 15 days of parole by the Karnataka High Court to solemnize his own wedding, with the court ruling that an inmate’s personal marriage is a valid reason for temporary release.
In a ruling delivered on September 24, Justice B M Shyam Prasad stated that excluding a prisoner’s own marriage from the grounds for parole would be unreasonable, especially since rules already allow temporary release to attend family weddings. The bench clarified that the decision does not grant an automatic entitlement to every prisoner seeking to wed, emphasizing that all standard statutory conditions governing parole must still be satisfied.
Challenge To Prison Rejection
The order resolved a petition jointly filed by the convict’s mother and his prospective bride. They had moved the High Court to overturn a May 9, 2025 decision by the superintendent of the Central Prison at Parappana Agrahara in Bengaluru, which had refused to grant emergency parole.
Correctional authorities had based their rejection on the grounds that emergency parole was confined to specific family events, such as the wedding of an inmate’s son, daughter, brother, or sister.
Justice Prasad observed that the legal framework undisputedly permitted convicts to secure general parole for a sibling’s wedding. Applying that standard, the court held that the same principle must encompass the convict’s own marriage. The court subsequently instructed prison administrators to grant 15 days of general parole under the provisions of the Karnataka Prisons and Correctional Services Manual, 2021, despite the petition originally challenging the denial of emergency parole.
Bail Status And Release Safeguards
State records, including an imprisonment certificate dated January 16, 2025, had detailed other pending criminal proceedings against the convict as potential grounds to bar his temporary release.
Upon reviewing the relevant case files, the High Court found that the convict had previously secured bail in each of the pending matters from either the sessions court or the High Court, with one proceeding requiring a cash surety. Finding no other disqualifying factors, the bench ruled that the pending matters did not warrant withholding parole.
To monitor the convict during his 15-day release, the court attached mandatory security conditions. The man must report to the jurisdictional police station every three days and is prohibited from leaving the police station’s territorial limits without the express consent of the station house officer.
