BENGALURU:
A convict serving life imprisonment in the church blast case has been granted parole by the High Court of Karnataka for two weeks.
The detenue, Mohammed Akhil, is one of the convicts in the July 2000 church blast case in Bengaluru. Twenty four accused belonging to the Deendar Anjuman sect were found guilty of the blasts that were triggered in Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Goa. Akhil was one of the 13 handed a life sentence.
Mubeen Unnissa Begum, wife of Akhil, had filed the petition, which was heard by Justice M Nagaprasanna.
”The convict, as of today, has undergone 23 years of imprisonment without remission and has not been granted parole throughout 23 years. The wife of the convict is now before this court seeking enlargement of her husband on parole on the score that she is suffering from ailments and, therefore, pleads that the presence of her husband is very much required in the family as other family members are also aged and suffering from ailments,” the court noted in its recent judgement.
The counsel for the petitioner argued that in July 2023 another convict in the case was granted parole by a co-ordinate bench because the convict’s mother was suffering from ailments.
The co-ordinate bench had based its judgement on a 1974 case where it was held that ”the court should treat the like-cases alike and if relief is granted to a litigant it needs to be extended to similarly circumstanced litigants as well, there being no derogatory circumstances.” The high court therefore allowed Akhil to be released on parole for two weeks between December 7 and evening of December 20, 2023.
It also directed the Chief Superintendent of Central Prison and the Director General of Police, Prisons and Correctional Services, to ”stipulate strict conditions as are usually stipulated, to ensure return of the detenu to the gaol and that he shall not commit any other offence during the period of parole.” Mubeen Unnissa Begum had sought 90 days parole for her husband. The court said the wife of the petitioner can seek extension of the parole ”which shall be considered looking at the conduct of the husband of the petitioner – the convict while he is out on parole.” Akhil was convicted for offences under Sections 120B, 121, 121A, 124A, 153A, 426, 437 of the Indian Penal Code for sedition and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosives Substances Act and Rule 5 and 9B of the Explosive Rules.
