Prisons DIG allegedly sexually exploited wife of convict to release him on parole

The wife of the convict, who was released from the Parappana Agrahara Central Prison based on a forged Supreme Court order, has reportedly claimed that she was sexually exploited by the Chief Superintendent of the Prison, presently Deputy Inspector-General of Prisons (DIG) M. Somashekhar, for her husband’s parole and release.

According to the police, the convict’s wife, in her statement before the court under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, alleged that accused Srikanth, a second division assistant in the convict section, had told her that she should sexually cooperate with Somasekhar to secure her husband’s release.

The police have alleged that Somasekhar subsequently sexually exploited her.

Investigators have also recorded statements from officers and staff of the Convict Prisoner Section who were on duty at the Central Prison in 2018. They allegedly stated that Shankar’s release was carried out on the instructions of Somasekhar, who was then the Chief Superintendent.

The police further alleged that the convict had earlier absconded after being released on parole. After he was apprehended and lodged in central prison, he applied for parole again. Although the prison officials reportedly noted that he was not eligible, Somasekhar allegedly granted him parole on three occasions in 2018, for 15 days each time, in violation of the applicable rules.

The investigation has also raised questions over the verification carried out before granting parole. Somasekhar had reportedly recorded that he contacted telephone number (23390847), purportedly belonging to the Chandra Layout Police Station, and obtained verification on all three occasions. Investigators later found that the number did not belong to the police station.

The police have also alleged that Somasekhar failed to properly verify the authenticity of the purported Supreme Court order used to release the convict. Investigators have questioned why the order was not subjected to proper verification, particularly when the judge whose signature appeared on the document had subsequently retired.