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

In a notable decision, 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 named Chandrabose. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice P. V. Balakrishnan, made this ruling after considering a favorable report from the probation officer and an appeal filed by Nisham's wife. The court emphasized the importance of allowing convicts temporary reprieves to address personal obligations and maintain social ties, provided they have demonstrated good conduct during incarceration and a genuine inclination towards reformation. ​

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. ​

Implications of the Ruling

This judgment highlights the judiciary's recognition of the rehabilitative aspects of parole, balancing the need for punishment with opportunities for reformation. It underscores the principle that even those serving life sentences should have avenues to address personal and familial obligations, provided they exhibit good behavior and a commitment to reintegration into society.

Court Practice Community

WhatsApp Group Invite

Join WhatsApp Community