Parole denial under prison rules cannot stand where the convict is not shown to be a habitual criminal.

The Karnataka HC noted that a convict sentenced only for offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was treated as facing a minor offence in criminal jurisprudence, and that Rule 191 of the Karnataka Prison Rules was aimed at very serious offences. Because there was no material to show the petitioner was a habitual criminal, Rule 191(1)(g) could not be invoked to deny parole consideration. The police report did not provide a sound basis to refuse reconsideration, as the alleged risk to witnesses and apprehension of reoffending lacked factual support. The parole application was therefore required to be reconsidered afresh.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rejection of the convict's application for parole could be sustained and whether Rule 191(1)(g) of the Karnataka Prison Rules, 1974 could be invoked to deny consideration of parole to a convict sentenced for offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The petitioner had been convicted only for offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which were treated as minor offences in criminal jurisprudence. In the earlier round of litigation, it had already been held that Rule 191 of the Karnataka Prison Rules, 1974 was not invocable because the rule is meant to address very serious offences and there was no material to show that the petitioner was a habitual criminal. The police report relied upon to oppose parole was found not to furnish a sound basis to deny reconsideration, since the apprehension regarding threat to witnesses had no factual foundation and the apprehension of repetition of offence was unsupported in the absence of any declaration that the petitioner was a habitual criminal.

Conclusion: Rule 191(1)(g) of the Karnataka Prison Rules, 1974 could not be used to reject the parole request, and the petitioner's application had to be reconsidered afresh.

---