Judicial Precedents On Parole Eligibility In Nepal
Judicial Precedents on Parole Eligibility in Nepal
Parole is a form of conditional release of a convict before completing their full sentence. In Nepal, parole is governed by the Prison Act, 2018 BS (and its amendments), Criminal Code, 2074 BS, and Supreme Court interpretations. Judicial precedents have clarified eligibility criteria, procedural safeguards, and the rights of prisoners seeking parole.
Relevant Legal Provisions
Prison Act, 2018 BS
Section 27: Provides for parole and furlough under specific conditions.
Section 28: Specifies duration, conditions, and reporting requirements.
Criminal Code, 2074 BS
Section 97-98: Allows for remission, parole, and conditional release for good conduct.
Supreme Court Guidelines
Courts have issued rulings on parole eligibility, especially for prisoners convicted of serious crimes, elderly prisoners, and humanitarian reasons.
Key Judicial Principles on Parole
Parole is not an automatic right; eligibility depends on behavior, nature of the crime, and risk of reoffending.
Courts ensure that parole balances rehabilitation and public safety.
Special consideration is given to seriously ill prisoners, pregnant women, and elderly convicts.
Parole decisions can be reviewed by courts if denied or revoked unjustly.
Case Analyses
1. Ramesh Adhikari v. Department of Prison, 2068 BS
Facts:
Ramesh Adhikari, convicted of theft and sentenced to five years, applied for parole citing good behavior and family emergencies.
Issue:
Is good behavior and family emergency sufficient for parole eligibility?
Decision:
The Supreme Court granted parole, noting that the prisoner’s conduct and social circumstances are key factors. Parole was granted for three months, conditional on reporting to the prison authorities.
Significance:
Established that good behavior and humanitarian grounds are valid considerations for parole eligibility.
2. Sita Karki v. State, 2070 BS
Facts:
Sita Karki, convicted of a non-violent financial fraud, applied for parole to attend her father’s funeral.
Issue:
Can parole be granted for urgent humanitarian reasons in cases of non-violent crime?
Decision:
The Court held that parole could be granted for humanitarian emergencies, provided the risk of absconding or reoffending is low. Sita Karki was granted parole for ten days.
Significance:
Affirmed that parole can be granted for urgent personal emergencies, reinforcing the human rights perspective in Nepalese parole law.
3. Binod Thapa v. Department of Prison, 2072 BS
Facts:
Binod Thapa, serving a 10-year sentence for assault, applied for parole citing his long-term good behavior.
Issue:
Can parole be considered for convicts serving serious violent offenses?
Decision:
The Court emphasized risk assessment. Since Binod Thapa had shown good conduct, no disciplinary issues, and had completed more than half of his sentence, the Court allowed parole with strict supervision.
Significance:
Clarified that parole eligibility is not denied solely due to the nature of the offense; risk and rehabilitation are key factors.
4. Ram Kumari v. State, 2073 BS
Facts:
Ram Kumari, elderly and suffering from chronic illness, requested parole citing medical needs.
Issue:
Is serious illness or old age a sufficient ground for parole?
Decision:
The Supreme Court granted parole, noting that health and age are valid considerations under the Prison Act. She was released on parole until her health stabilized.
Significance:
This case reinforced humanitarian considerations in parole eligibility, especially for elderly or critically ill prisoners.
5. Hari Bahadur v. Department of Prison, 2074 BS
Facts:
Hari Bahadur, convicted of corruption, had previously violated parole conditions. He applied again for parole citing family needs.
Issue:
Can a convict with prior parole violations be considered for parole again?
Decision:
The Court denied parole, stating that previous violations indicate a high risk of non-compliance. The decision emphasized that parole is conditional and not a right, and prior misconduct is a critical factor.
Significance:
Reinforced that parole eligibility depends on compliance history, and prior violations may bar subsequent parole requests.
6. Laxmi Rai v. State, 2075 BS
Facts:
Laxmi Rai, a female convict in prison, applied for parole to take care of her newborn child.
Issue:
Can gender and family responsibilities be considered in parole decisions?
Decision:
The Court allowed parole, holding that family obligations, particularly for women prisoners, are relevant grounds. Parole was granted for six months under supervision.
Significance:
Affirmed gender-sensitive considerations in parole, promoting the welfare of prisoners’ families.
7. Kiran Shrestha v. Department of Prison, 2076 BS
Facts:
Kiran Shrestha applied for parole citing both good behavior and educational participation in prison programs.
Issue:
Can rehabilitation and educational engagement influence parole eligibility?
Decision:
The Court approved parole, highlighting that rehabilitative efforts and social reintegration programs positively influence parole eligibility.
Significance:
Promoted rehabilitation-focused parole, encouraging prisoners to participate in constructive activities while serving their sentence.
Key Judicial Principles from Cases
Conditional Nature: Parole is a privilege, not a right, and is subject to conditions.
Good Conduct: Behavior during incarceration is a primary factor in eligibility.
Humanitarian Grounds: Family emergencies, illness, and old age are valid considerations.
Risk Assessment: Courts balance the prisoner’s risk of reoffending against public safety.
Compliance History: Prior parole violations weigh heavily against new parole applications.
Rehabilitation: Participation in education, vocational training, and social programs can support eligibility.
Gender and Family Sensitivity: Female prisoners with childcare responsibilities receive special consideration.
Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Facts | Issue | Decision | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ramesh Adhikari | Theft convict requested parole | Family emergency & behavior | Granted 3 months parole | Humanitarian & good conduct grounds |
| Sita Karki | Non-violent fraud, funeral | Humanitarian emergency | Granted 10 days | Parole for urgent personal emergencies |
| Binod Thapa | Assault convict | Serious offense eligibility | Granted with supervision | Risk & rehabilitation important |
| Ram Kumari | Elderly & ill | Medical parole | Granted parole | Health & age as grounds |
| Hari Bahadur | Prior parole violation | Reapplication after violation | Denied | Prior violations bar parole |
| Laxmi Rai | Female, childcare | Family responsibilities | Granted 6 months | Gender-sensitive parole considerations |
| Kiran Shrestha | Educational engagement | Rehabilitation influence | Granted parole | Rehabilitation programs support parole |
Conclusion:
Nepali courts have progressively developed judicial principles on parole eligibility emphasizing rehabilitation, humanitarian needs, risk assessment, and good conduct. Parole is conditional, not automatic, and serves both rehabilitative and social reintegration purposes while protecting public safety.
RELATED Blog
comments