The decision to release the prisoner known as Zakhary Kalashov, widely recognized by the alias Shakro Molodoy, was influenced by a medical evaluation. Kalashov’s attorney, Tengiz Papaskua, stated that a health commission reviewed Kalashov’s condition and concluded that his ongoing illness justified relief from punishment. Papaskua stressed that medical exemptions are distinct from parole, noting that each process rests on separate legal principles.
News reports indicate that the court considered Kalashov’s health when granting a form of relief. On March 13, the TASS news agency reported that the Ust-Labinsk court in Krasnodar Territory approved Kalashov’s parole release due to illness. The Shot Telegram channel suggested the proceedings were held behind closed doors, and no exact release date was provided at that time. The ruling appears to reflect a cautious judicial approach that weighs public safety against humanitarian concerns arising from the prisoner’s health status.
Kalashov, now seventy years old, is imprisoned in a maximum-security penal colony in Krasnodar Territory. His case traces back to a 2018 conviction that resulted in a sentence of nine years and ten months for intimidation and coercive actions involving the owner of Elements, a Moscow restaurant on Rochdelskaya Street. The 2015 incident included a threatening confrontation that culminated in a shooting, adding complexity to the legal proceedings and fueling public debate surrounding his case.
In a separate thread of reporting, there were mentions of another prominent figure described as a “thief in law,” Vova Pukhly, being detained in Africa. This reference places Kalashov’s situation within a broader landscape of legal and criminal developments involving high-profile figures connected to the same networks and regions. Observers note ongoing media attention as authorities monitor the trajectories of individuals under scrutiny across borders.
Experts emphasize that Kalashov’s health condition was central to the court’s decision, with legal representatives arguing that medical considerations can justify different forms of release or exemptions from punishment. The case demonstrates how medical findings intersect with criminal law to shape outcomes in high-profile scenarios where public interest, security concerns, and humane treatment are weighed in tandem. As developments unfold, parties involved remain attentive to the timing and formalities surrounding any forthcoming parole or release arrangements, while keeping in mind the legal distinctions that govern medical exemptions, parole eligibility, and sentence imposition.
This evolving situation underscores the tension between accountability and humanitarian considerations in the criminal justice system. It also highlights how health assessments can influence judicial choices, especially in cases involving individuals with longstanding notoriety and networks that extend beyond national borders. The ongoing coverage reflects a broader interest in how health, law, and public safety intersect when high-profile figures face decisions about their liberty and supervision after detention.