AP High Court Calls It An Exceptional Case | Permits Life Convict To Attend Son’s Wedding Despite Rule 27 Restriction | Co-Convict Already On Parole But Humanitarian Grounds Prevail
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh Division Bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice R. Raghunandan Rao has permitted the temporary release of a convict serving a life sentence to attend his son's wedding, despite concerns under Rule 27 of the Suspension of Sentence on Parole Rules, 2024. The Court directed that the convict be allowed to join the ceremonies on 10th and 11th May 2025 under proper police escort and be returned to prison by 5:00 PM on 12th May 2025. The writ appeal was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.
The writ appeal was filed by the son of a life convict, currently incarcerated at Kadapa Central Prison, seeking temporary parole for his father to attend his marriage. The appellant contended that although his father's parole application had been allowed, it was made conditional upon the return of another co-convict involved in the same case, who was already on parole.
The basis of the restriction stemmed from Rule 27 of the Suspension of Sentence on Parole Rules, 2024, issued under G.O.Ms.No.04 by the Home (Paroles & HRC) Department on 06.01.2025. This rule provides that in cases involving multiple convicts in the same offence, parole must be regulated to prevent any law and order complications.
According to the appellant, his father had previously been released on parole without incident, and there were no compelling reasons to deny temporary leave for his wedding. The appellant also stated the significance of the upcoming family event, scheduled for 11th May 2025, and urged the Court to consider the request in light of humanitarian grounds.
On behalf of the State, the learned Government Pleader for Home submitted that another convict, Vemireddy Bala Chinnareddy (Accused No. 4), had been granted parole on 26th March 2025 and released on 29th March 2025. His parole was initially granted for 30 days and extended by 15 days, set to expire on 14th May 2025. The authorities were of the view that granting parole to the appellant’s father during this period could give rise to a potential law and order issue as per Rule 27.
It was contended that under the prevailing rules, it would be procedurally inappropriate to release both convicts at the same time due to the risk of their simultaneous presence in the same locality, which could disturb public order. Therefore, the Superintendent of the Central Prison, Kadapa, had deferred parole for the appellant’s father until the return of Vemireddy Bala Chinnareddy.
The appellant, however, sought a tailored interim solution due to the unique nature of the occasion. The marriage of the convict's son was scheduled to take place in their native village, and the plea focused on securing temporary release for limited dates with police supervision to mitigate any risks.
After hearing the parties, the Bench took into account the specific family circumstances presented by the appellant. The Court proceeded to review the content and purpose of Rule 27 in detail, examining its objectives and applicability to the facts of the case. It ultimately weighed the rule-based administrative rationale with the unique facts concerning the wedding.
The Division Bench recorded: “On a perusal of Rule 27 of the Rules, it can be seen that while considering the case of parole proposal of prisoners where there are more than one convicts under the same offence, the Rule envisages that the Superintendent of the Jail should exercise due diligence and process the parole application in such a way so as to avoid any law and order complications once the convicts are released on parole.”
The Court noted the reasoning adopted by prison authorities: “In terms of Rule 27 of the Rules, it appears that the Superintendent of Central Prison is of the opinion that since there is already another convict namely Vemireddy Bala Chinnareddy on parole, granting parole to the petitioner’s father would lead to law and order complications.”
However, addressing the exceptional circumstances of the petitioner, the Bench recorded: “Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case where the convict’s son i.e., the petitioner herein is getting married on 11.05.2025, we feel that interests of justice, as an exceptional case, warrant that the petitioner’s father be permitted to join the wedding celebrations on 10.05.2025 and 11.05.2025 under proper police escort.”
The Court directed the Superintendent, Central Prison, Kadapa, to organize proper police escort for the convict prisoner on 10.05.2025 to be taken to the village of the petitioner’s father where the wedding ceremony is to be held and to ensure his return by the evening of 12.05.2025 by 5:00 P.M.
The Writ Appeal was disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were declared closed.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Sri Gundala Siva Prasada Reddy
For the Respondents: Learned Government Pleader for Home
Case Title: Vennapusa Raghunath Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others
Neutral Citation: APHC010258862025
Case Number: Writ Appeal No. 597 of 2025
Bench: Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur, Chief Justice, and Justice R. Raghunandan Rao
[Read/Download order]
