Telangana High Court Upholds Penalty On Life Convict Who Jumped Parole For 40-Yrs, Became Govt Teacher, Received 'Best Teacher Award'

The Telangana High Court has refused to interfere with the punishment imposed on a life convict who failed to surrender after his parole expired in 1984 and remained outside prison for over 40 years during which he secured a government teaching job, served until retirement and even received a Best Teacher Award.

Justice Tangirala Madhavi Devi held that the convict had intentionally evaded arrest and had obtained the government job by deception without disclosing his conviction. The Court upheld the forfeiture of his entire earned remission of approximately 27 days and denial of parole and furlough for three years. It also directed the State to create a mechanism to ensure that prisoners released on parole are tracked and return to prison when their parole expires.

The Court observed:

“It is clear that the convict has intentionally evaded the arrest and his contention that he was appointed as a Government teacher and worked as such till the date of superannuation also goes to prove that he has intentionally not disclosed about the conviction and has obtained the Government job by deception. The petitioner's husband has been successful in leading the prime period of his life out of prison and enjoyed all the benefits.”

The convict had been sentenced to life imprisonment in June 1983 for murder with common object (Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC). He was also sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment for rioting while armed with a deadly weapon (Section 148 IPC), with both sentences to run concurrently.

He was released on parole from Central Prison, Warangal on December 17, 1983. His parole was extended until March 17, 1984 and he was required to surrender the following day. However, he did not return to prison.

He was eventually apprehended by a Special Task Force of the Central Prison, Warangal on May 16, 2024, after remaining outside prison for 40 years, one month and 28 days. He was subsequently transferred to Central Prison, Cherlapalli.

In the intervening period, according to the petitioner's case, he worked as a government teacher in Gudivada and retired on attaining the age of superannuation in 2013. He was also awarded a Best Teacher Award in 2004.

After his apprehension, the prison authorities issued him a show-cause notice over his prolonged overstay. His explanation was rejected and, in September 2024, the Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services ordered forfeiture of his entire earned remission of approximately 27 days and denied him parole and furlough for three years.

His wife approached the High Court challenging this punishment. She argued that the authorities had failed to apprehend him for four decades even though he had been residing in Mahabubabad District and working as a government teacher.

It was also argued that he was suffering from serious medical ailments and required specialised treatment. The three-year prohibition on parole prevented him from seeking temporary release even on medical grounds, she submitted.

The State opposed the petition. It said that after the convict failed to surrender, several communications were addressed to the police authorities seeking to trace him. The record included communications between 2012 and 2020 concerning attempts to locate him.

The State further submitted that he had served only six months and seven days of his life sentence when he jumped parole. He had not voluntarily returned to prison but had to be apprehended by a Special Task Force.

The High Court found no violation of natural justice in the punishment imposed after his return. It noted that a show-cause notice had been issued and he was heard before the punishment was imposed.

Since his conviction had neither been set aside nor successfully challenged, the Court said he was required to undergo the remaining sentence.

The Court also rejected the plea for relief on medical grounds. It took note of the State's submission that Central Prison, Cherlapalli had a 50-bed hospital, medical and paramedical staff and a 24-hour ambulance facility. If necessary, prisoners could also be referred to specialist government hospitals in Hyderabad.

The Court distinguished the Delhi High Court's decision in Kailash Wati v. State of Delhi, which had emphasised a humanitarian approach while considering parole on medical grounds. It noted that the convict in that case was 81 years old, bedridden and had already served half of a seven-year sentence.

The Court said that those circumstances did not exist in the present case and that “every case has to be considered in the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case.”

The High Court also expressed concern that a life convict could remain outside prison for four decades and serve in a government job until retirement without being apprehended.

It observed:

“This instance of not being able to track a prisoner for a period of forty years during which, he gets appointed to a Government job and renders service without interruption till he attains the age of superannuation reflects poorly on the attempts of the jail authorities in keeping track of the prisoner when they are granted parole without guards and would embolden many others to adopt such methods of overstayal and deception.”

To prevent recurrence, the Court directed the Home Department and prison authorities to frame necessary guidelines and machinery to track prisoners released on parole and ensure that they report back upon expiry of their parole period.

The authorities were also directed to constitute Special Task Forces to maintain strict vigilance over prisoners on parole.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

Case Title: Sandela Charamma v. State of Telangana & Ors.

Case No.: W.P. No. 14504 of 2026

Appearance: Basheer Riyaz for the petitioner; Mahesh Raje, Government Pleader for Home, for the respondents.

Click Here To Read/Download Order