Karnataka HC Refuses Parole To Serial Killer Umesh Reddy, Says Competing Public Interest Can't Be Ignored Especially In Case Of Life Convict

The Karnataka High Court has said that in cases where the convicts are undergoing life imprisonment, competing public interest cannot be ignored while considering their application seeking parole.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed a petition filed by convict BA Umesh alias Umesh Reddy, a serial killer seeking 30 days parole to attend to his ailing mother and carry out repairs to her house.

The court said “It is not that in every case, one should be granted parole for the 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 petitioner was convicted and sentenced to suffer death sentence. However, the Apex Court commuted the death sentence to the sentence of life imprisonment, with a rider that he would undergo minimum sentence of 30 years and if any application is filed for remission, it would be considered only after he undergoes actual sentence of 30 years.

The petitioner argued that once the death sentence is converted to imprisonment for life, he becomes a convict like any other convict for the offences punishable under Section 302 or 376 of the IPC. The impugned order rejecting parole, misquotes and misinterprets the order of the Apex Court, he said. “The Apex Court directed that the petitioner cannot claim remission till he completes 30 years which will not come in his way of seeking parole in justifiable circumstances,” he argued.

The prosecution opposed the plea saying if he is released on parole, his life itself would be at threat, apart from the fact that the petitioner does not deserve to be released on parole at any cost. State submitted Petitioner was a Police Constable and had committed series of rapes and murders. Therefore, he should not be released on parole on any grounds whatsoever and more so, on the specious plea that the Apex Court has converted his death sentence to imprisonment for life.

The bench referring to the police report said “The report indicates inter alia that in the event the petitioner is released on parole, the past enmity against the petitioner can become a threat to his life. The report is also indicative of the fact that, if the petitioner would be released on parole, reminiscence of old enmity could emerge. The petitioner has two brothers who would take care of the mother or even repair the house, which is said to be in a dilapidated condition.”

Then relying on Apex court judgment in the case of Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan (2017), it held “Looking at the reasons rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ASFAQ as followed by other High Courts, it cannot be said that the petitioner is now a convict as any other convict and should be released on parole. Though 30 years rider would not be ipso facto applicable for consideration of application seeking parole, the same would not mean that he becomes entitled to grant of parole, as the circumstances narrated in the case of ASFAQ by the Apex Court would fit into fact situation on all its fours.”

Appearance: Senior Advocate Hashmath Pasha for Advocate Kariappa N A For Petitioner.

Additional Advocate General C.S.Pradeep a/w HCGP Manjunath K for Respondent.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 103

Case Title: B A Umesh AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: Writ Petition No 23950 OF 2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order