The Kerala High Court has granted a 15-day parole to Mohammed Nisham, a businessman convicted in a 2015 case for running over and killing a security guard, Chandrabose. A Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice P.V. Balakrishnan delivered the judgment in Writ Appeal No. 553 of 2025, filed by Nisham’s wife challenging the earlier order rejecting parole.
Nisham is currently serving a life sentence at the Central Prison and Correctional Home, Viyyur.
“It must be remembered that a convict, literally speaking, is to remain in prison for the entire period of his sentence or, in the case of a life convict, for the rest of his natural life. It is in this solemn context that parole must be seen as a temporary reprieve – an opportunity not only to address personal or familial obligations but also to maintain essential social ties.” — Kerala High Court
Background and Arguments
The earlier parole plea had been rejected based on an adverse police report, which expressed concern over possible law and order issues due to ongoing property and business disputes between Nisham and his siblings. The Assistant Commissioner of Police and the Inspector of Police, Viyyur, had submitted reports warning of potential conflicts if Nisham were released.
The appeal, filed by his wife, pointed out that Nisham had only been granted interim bail on three brief occasions since his incarceration began in 2015. After being transferred from the Thavanur prison to Viyyur in September 2023 for misbehavior and possession of banned substances, no further disciplinary action was taken against him.
The Probation Officer submitted a positive report recommending parole. The Court emphasized that such a report carries significant weight as an independent and professional evaluation.
“The report of the Probationary Officer has to be given due weight as it is an independent and professional assessment of the facts and circumstances.” — Kerala High Court
The Court referred to Section 73 of the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Act, 2010, which permits parole on sufficient grounds such as family illness, death, or other pressing causes.
It also cited Rule 397 of the Kerala Prison and Correctional Services (Management) Rules, 2014, which allows convicts with good conduct and who have served at least two years or one-third of their sentence (whichever is less) to apply for up to 60 days of parole annually, with each period not exceeding 30 days.
The Court reiterated that despite the existence of disputes with his siblings, Nisham had already approached the Arbitral Tribunal to resolve them legally, and his personal presence was essential for progressing those proceedings.
The Court noted that while an adverse police report can be a factor in denying parole, it cannot be the sole determining ground, especially when unsupported by specific and credible material evidence. It highlighted the judiciary’s role in reviewing administrative decisions on parole under Article 226 of the Constitution.
“When the relevant enactments confer the authority to grant parole on the ground of 'sufficient cause,’ the adequacy and sufficiency of the reasons cited for either granting or refusing parole become amenable to judicial review.” — Kerala High Court
Emphasizing the broader aims of criminal justice, the Court stated that punishment should not only be about retribution but also about reform. Temporary release provides an opportunity for convicts to address personal matters and maintain social ties, provided they exhibit consistent good conduct.
The Court cited the Supreme Court's judgments in:
- Babulal Das v. State of West Bengal (1975) 1 SCC 311
"Short-term release may, perhaps, be a social gain, the beneficial jurisdiction being wisely exercised." - Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan & Others [AIR 2017 SC 4986]
"Convicts must breathe fresh air for at least some time if they maintain good conduct and show signs of reform."
Setting aside the earlier decision of the Single Judge, the Division Bench directed the competent authority to grant 15-day parole to Mohammed Nisham on appropriate conditions to ensure law and order.
“Stringent and carefully framed conditions can be imposed to ensure that the convict does not overstep legal or geographical boundaries or engage in any altercation with his siblings.” — Kerala High Court
The Court made it clear that law enforcement must ensure that no untoward incident occurs during Nisham’s parole period. The judgment underscores the principle that every prisoner, including life convicts, has the right to temporary freedom when justified by law and conduct.
Counsel for the Appellant: Advocates Bejoy Joseph P. J., M. Ramesh Chander (Sr.), Govind G. Nair, Balu Tom, Bonny Benny
Counsel for the Respondents: Adv. C. K. Suresh (Spl. GP)
Case No: WA 553/ 2025
Case Title: Amal Nisham v The State of Kerala and Another
