Recent Topic

10/recent/ticker-posts

About Me

Kerala High Court Grants 15-Day Parole to Mohammed Nisham, Convicted for Killing Security Guard

Kerala High Court Grants 15-Day Parole to Mohammed Nisham, Convicted for Killing Security Guard
In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court has granted a 15-day parole to Mohammed Nisham, a businessman convicted in 2015 for the murder of a security guard, Chandrabose. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice P. V. Balakrishnan, made this decision after considering a favorable report from the probation officer and Nisham's wife's appeal. The court emphasized that parole serves as a temporary reprieve, allowing convicts to address personal or familial obligations and maintain essential social ties, provided they have exhibited good conduct during incarceration and shown a genuine inclination towards reformation and integration.

Background of the Case

Mohammed Nisham, engaged in tobacco sales and real estate, was convicted for the brutal killing of security guard Chandrabose in 2015. The incident occurred when Chandrabose delayed opening the gate, prompting Nisham to run him over. The District Court sentenced Nisham to life imprisonment, a verdict later upheld by the High Court.

State's Opposition to Parole

The State opposed Nisham's parole, citing an adverse police report that highlighted ongoing property and business disputes with his siblings. Authorities expressed concerns that his release might lead to law-and-order issues. Additionally, the Government Pleader pointed out Nisham's past misbehavior towards jail officers and possession of prohibited substances, which had resulted in minor punishments, including the forfeiture of remission for up to 15 days.

Court's Consideration and Decision

In response to the State's concerns, Nisham's representatives informed the court that arbitration proceedings were underway to resolve disputes with his siblings. They also noted that since his conviction in 2015, Nisham had been out of jail for only a little over three months, either on bail or leave. After evaluating these factors, the court concluded that parole was appropriate in this case, underscoring the importance of allowing convicts brief periods of freedom to maintain social connections and fulfill personal responsibilities.

Court Practice Community

WhatsApp Group Invite

Join WhatsApp Community

Post a Comment

0 Comments

'; (function() { var dsq = document.createElement('script'); dsq.type = 'text/javascript'; dsq.async = true; dsq.src = '//' + disqus_shortname + '.disqus.com/embed.js'; (document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0] || document.getElementsByTagName('body')[0]).appendChild(dsq); })();