4-yr-old plea spurred probe that led to DIG’s arrest: Senior cop

What happened to M Somashekar, and what investigation led to his arrest?

M Somashekar, now deputy inspector general of prisons for the North Range, was arrested over alleged misconduct connected to a prisoner’s release. Police are examining whether he knowingly authorised Shankar A’s release using a fake Supreme Court order. They are also investigating alleged sexual exploitation and irregular parole decisions.

The case traces back to a petition that remained inside Bengaluru Central Prison for nearly four years. After Alok Kumar became director general of Prisons and Correctional Services, he ordered an inquiry. It found that the order dated November 2, 2018, was not genuine, although Shankar was released on November 13. Police later arrested assistant S Srikanth, who allegedly prepared the document and received money.

Somashekar remains in police custody while investigators question him about the forged order, parole records, and complaints from Shankar’s wife. The sexual-exploitation allegations have not been established by a court. A purported video has been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory.

What is a forged court order, and how was one allegedly used to release Shankar from prison?

A forged court order is an unauthorised or fabricated document presented as a genuine judicial direction. It matters because prison officials rely on court orders to decide whether a prisoner may be released, transferred, or granted another legal benefit. A fake order can therefore bypass the safeguards built into the justice system.

In this case, police allege that Shankar’s release was secured using a purported Supreme Court order dated November 2, 2018. The document was not genuine, according to the inquiry ordered by prisons director general Alok Kumar. Shankar nevertheless left Bengaluru Central Prison on November 13. Police allege that prison official M Somashekar knew the document was forged and authorised the release.

The investigation later arrested S Srikanth, then a second division assistant. Police allege that Srikanth helped prepare the forged order and received ₹6 lakh. Investigators are also examining whether officials ignored verification requirements before acting on it.

How much money was allegedly requested and paid, and how many times was Shankar granted parole?

The alleged financial demand was ₹12 lakh, but Shankar’s wife reportedly paid ₹6 lakh. Police say the payment was connected to obtaining her husband’s release through the forged Supreme Court order. The amount makes the alleged scheme more than a paperwork failure; it points to a suspected exchange involving money and official access.

Investigators allege that S Srikanth, then a second division assistant in the Convict Prisoner Section, helped prepare the fake order and received ₹6 lakh. Police say Shankar then came out of prison using that document. The article does not say that Somashekar received this money, but it alleges he knew about the forged order and authorised the release.

Parole records form a separate part of the investigation. Police allege that Somashekar granted Shankar 15-day parole three times in 2018, despite adverse remarks from prison staff. One verification is also under scrutiny because investigators say a recorded police-station number did not belong to that station.

How did a four-year-old petition inside the prison eventually trigger the inquiry?

The petition became important because it preserved an unresolved warning about how a life convict had been released. It remained with senior prison officials for about four years, allowing questions about the release to go unexamined. The delay shows why internal complaints can matter even when they do not produce an immediate response.

After Alok Kumar took charge as director general of Prisons and Correctional Services, he found the pending petition and directed an inquiry. Investigators determined that the Supreme Court order used in Shankar’s release was not genuine. The document carried a November 2, 2018 date, and Shankar was released on November 13. The inquiry also found suspicious conduct among people involved.

The inquiry moved the issue from an old prison complaint into a formal investigation. Police later arrested S Srikanth, and the case expanded to include Somashekar’s alleged role, parole records, and complaints by Shankar’s wife. The case was formally registered on May 20, 2026, after a prison superintendent complained.

What specific allegations have investigators made against Somashekar, and which of them still require proof in court?

Police have made several allegations against M Somashekar. They say he knew the Supreme Court order was forged and authorised Shankar’s release in 2018. They also allege that he granted Shankar 15-day parole on three occasions despite adverse prison remarks. One verification allegedly relied on a number recorded as belonging to Chandra Layout police station, although investigators later said it did not.

The most serious personal allegation concerns Shankar’s wife. Police allege that Somashekar sexually exploited her while offering to help free her husband. They also allege that he made video calls and asked her to strip. These claims are part of the remand proceedings, not findings of guilt.

The article makes clear that the sexual-exploitation allegation has not been established by a court. Investigators obtained a purported video and sent it to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. The allegations about the forged order, parole, and verification also must be tested through the investigation and legal proceedings.

What consequences can a forged release order have for the prisoner, prison officials, the victim’s family, and public trust in the justice system?

A forged release order can disrupt justice at several levels. A prisoner may leave custody without lawful authority, while victims and their families may lose the protection they expect from a sentence. Officials who accept or approve the document can face investigation, disciplinary action, or prosecution if wrongdoing is proved. The article’s case illustrates these risks through the arrest of a prison official and the investigation of another employee.

The alleged fraud also affected Shankar’s wife. Police say she paid ₹6 lakh after being asked for ₹12 lakh, and investigators allege that Somashekar sexually exploited her while promising help. Police further say Shankar later deserted her and married another woman. These allegations remain subject to legal proof.

Beyond individual harm, such a case can damage trust in courts, prisons, and official records. It may prompt stronger document checks, audits, and complaint systems. In this matter, investigators are still examining the order, parole records, verification, and purported video.

How are prison authorities supposed to verify court orders and parole requests before releasing a prisoner?

In general, prison authorities should verify a court order against the issuing court’s official records, secure communication channels, and authenticated copies. They should confirm the case number, prisoner’s identity, dates, signatures, and exact direction. No release should proceed until authorised officers independently confirm that the order came from the court and applies to that prisoner.

Parole requests require similar checks. Officials should review the prisoner’s conduct, sentence status, eligibility, prior parole, and prison staff’s remarks. They should verify addresses and police reports through official contact details, preserve an audit trail, and require approval at the proper level. A second officer should review unusual or adverse cases.

The article does not describe the department’s complete formal procedure. It does report that investigators questioned a verification because a recorded number did not belong to Chandra Layout police station. That allegation shows why direct, documented verification matters before release or parole is approved.

Key Facts:

📌 Somashekar was arrested on October 4.

📌 The inquiry began with a four-year-old prison petition.

📌 Investigators are examining the forged order and alleged sexual exploitation.

📌 The alleged order was dated November 2, 2018.

📌 Shankar was released eleven days later.

📌 An inquiry found the Supreme Court order was not genuine.

📌 The alleged demand was ₹12 lakh.