Life convict jumps parole, stays out 40 years, gets government job, ‘best teacher’ award

The court directed the authorities concerned to constitute special task forces to keep strict vigilance over prisoners on parole.

Justice T Madhavi Devi rejected the plea for parole on medical grounds, noting that medical facilities were available in the prison.

Convicted then released on parole

According to the records, the petitioner’s husband was convicted in 1983 in a murder case and sentenced to life imprisonment. He was released on parole on December 17, 1983, initially for 30 days, with the period subsequently extended until March 17, 1984. He was required to surrender on March 18, 1984, but did not return to prison.

He remained outside prison for over four decades before being apprehended by a special task force on May 16, 2024. He was subsequently transferred to central prison. The convict’s wife challenged an order under which his entire earned remission of around 27 days was forfeited and he was denied parole and furlough for three years.

The petitioner argued that the authorities had taken action after an unexplained delay of nearly 40 years. She also submitted that her husband had been working as a government teacher, retired in 2013 and had even received a ‘Best Teacher’ Award in 2004.

On the other hand, the state opposed the plea and submitted that the punishment awarded to the petitioner’s husband was as per the rules and there was no illegality or violation of the principles of natural justice. It was further stated that when the petitioner’s husband jumped parole and did not report back, several letters were addressed to the superintendent of police, and ultimately, a special task force team was formed for apprehending the petitioner’s husband.

The counsel said that the parole is not an absolute right for prisoners and that they cannot claim it as a matter of right. It was further added that if a prisoner who is released on furlough/leave commits a breach of any of the conditions of furlough/leave, he may be awarded the punishment of non-inclusion of the furlough/leave period towards sentence.

The court noted that the petitioner’s husband did not voluntarily report to the central prison after the expiry of the parole period. It observed that he intentionally evaded arrest and his claim of having worked as a government teacher until retirement also indicated that he had deliberately concealed his conviction and obtained government employment “by deception”.

“The petitioner’s husband has been successful in leading the prime period of his life out of prison and enjoyed all the benefits,” the court said.

The court also rejected the plea for parole on medical grounds, noting that medical facilities were available in the prison as stated by the respondent in the counter affidavit.

Before parting with the order, the court directed the state authorities to frame such guidelines and machinery as necessary to keep track of persons granted parole report back to the prison on expiry of the parole period.

The court observed that lapses such as in the present case could embolden others to overstay parole and evade the prison system. 

The court eventually dismissed the plea.