Soumya Jena, KIIT School of Law
EQUIVALENT CITATIONS: (2006) 8 SC 321
SUMMARY OF FACTS:
In this case, the respondent is a Congress worker who was convicted for the murder of the worker of the Telugu Desham party. PETITIONER NO. 2 who was purportedly killed by RESPONDENT NO.2 while he was on bail in the homicide case PETITIONER NO.1's dad. RESPONDENT NO.2 confronted the preliminary and the matter preceded the court.
The court forced 10 years' thorough detainment on the RESPONDENT NO.2. Later on, RESPONDENT NO.3 spouse of RESPONDENT NO.2 recorded an application for award of parole for 15 days before the legislative leader of state-Mr. Sushil Kumar Shinde, who was pastor of force under the U.P.A government. The Governor conceded them reduction of the unexpired sentence under Article 161 of the Indian Constitution. By the child of the killed individual that Constitutional legitimacy of the Governor's party in power was tested in the Andhra Pradesh High Court. After High Court subdued the request for absolving power by lead representative. Then, at that point, a writ request was recorded bury alia under the steady gaze of the Supreme Court asserting the award of reduction and claimed that it was unlawful, without the use of psyche and no important material was set before the Governor and without the use of brain upbraided request was passed. The sole premise on which the Respondent No.3 documented an application to concede pardon was affirmed suggestions in bogus cases because of political competition.
