—
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION No.17011/2023 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
SRI VENKATESH,
S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
PRESENTLY LODGED AT OPEN
AIR JAIL DEVANAHALLI (CT NO.1007).
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI VINAY KUTTAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT
OPEN AIR JAIL,
DEVANAHALLI-562110.
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA-562101.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.06.2023 BEARING NO.
2
DCRB/CBP/PAROLE/01/2023 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A AND
CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE R2 TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER
ON PAROLE LEAVE.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 15.12.2023, THIS DAY THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition seeking to quash impugned
order/recommendation dated 17.06.2023 by respondent
No.3 at Annexure – A dated 17.06.2023.
2. Brief facts:
The petitioner has been convicted in S.C.
No.88/2013 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Chikkaballapur and sentenced to imprisonment for life for
the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. The petitioner aggrieved by the judgment
dated 16.01.2015 passed in S.C. No.88/2013 preferred the
Criminal Appeal No.285/2015 before this Court. The
Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated
3
02.06.2021, dismissed the appeal confirming the order of
conviction.
4. The petitioner was granted parole for thirty
days by order dated 28.10.2021. The petitioner filed
another application seeking parole at Annexure – J dated
26.05.2023 on the ground to repair his residential house.
In a report by respondent No.3 to the respondent No.2
dated 17.06.2023 recommended to refuse the parole on
various grounds.
5. Sri. Vinay Kuttappa, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner submits that though parole application
was filed to repair the residential house, the petitioner’s
wife has given birth to male child on 17.08.2022; he has
no opportunity to share his love and affection to the child.
Hence, on humanitarian grounds, the parole ought to have
been granted. The petitioner was released on parole by
order dated 28.10.2021, the petitioner complied with the
conditions and surrendered to the Jail Authorities after the
period of parole. Conduct of the petitioner is good. On the
4
above grounds, prays to release the petitioner on parole
for a period of thirty days.
6. Smt. Spoorthy Hegde N., learned High Court
Government Pleader appearing for the respondents
submits that no case is made out to exercise discretionary
power by the respondents to extend the parole. Further
submits that the report given by respondent No.3 is
considered, it is not in the interest of the villagers to
release the petitioner on parole. On the above
submissions, requests for dismissal of the writ petition.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the records.
8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was
released on parole for thirty days by release order dated
28.10.2021 in exercise of power under Section 56 of the
Karnataka Prisons Act, 1963. It is not the case of the
respondents that
5
(i) The petitioner has violated the conditions of
earlier parole.
(ii) No complaint by the Prison Authorities on the
conduct and behavior of the petitioner to
refuse parole.
9. Clause 635 and 636 of the Karnataka Prisons
and Correctional Services Manual, 2021 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the Manual’ for short) provides for release
of a prison on parole. Clause 635 and 636 reads as under:
635. Statutory Provision;
“i. Section 55 of the Karnataka Prisons Act, 963
and Rule 191 of the Karnataka Prisons Rules,
1974 confers on State Government or any
authority empowered by it the power to
release prisoners temporarily;
ii. General Parole and Emergency Parole to
inmates are progressive measures of
correctional services. The release of a
prisoner on leave not only saves him from
the evils of incarceration but also enables
him to maintain social relations with his
family and the community.
6
iii. It also helps him to maintain and develop a
sense of self-confidence. Continued contacts
with family and the community sustain in
him a hope for life.
iv. The provisions for grant of parole should be
liberalized to help a prisoner to maintain a
harmonious relationship with his family. The
privilege of parole should, of course, be
allowed to selective prisoners on the basis of
well- defined norms of eligibility;
v. General and Emergency Parole cannot be
claimed as a matter of right but it is a
concession granted to the convicted
prisoner;
vi. Director General of Prisons and Correctional
Services reserves the right to debar or
withdraw any prisoner or category of
prisoners from the concession of any parole.
vii. The expense of journey to and from his place
of stay for general parole or emergency
parole shall be borne by the prisoner
concerned;
viii. The period spent on general parole or
emergency parole shall not count as
sentence;
7
ix. The prisoner will be liable and recalled
immediately to prison in case he violates any
of the conditions by the Director General of
Prisons and Correctional Services;
x. A register and separate file shall be
maintained in Prison;
xi. A person can give surety for two or more
prisoners.”
636. Objectives of Parole;
“i. To enable the inmate to maintain continuity
with his family life and deal with family
matters and settlement of life after release;
ii. To enable him to maintain and develop his
self-confidence, constructive hope and active
interest in life;
iii. Agricultural operations like sowing and
harvesting;
iv. To make arrangements for admission of
children in school/college/technical
education;
v. Construction and repair of home;
……..”
8
10. Clause 635 of the Manual provides for release
of the prisoner on parole to enable him to maintain social
relations with his family and the community, to maintain
harmonious relationship with his family, to enable the
prisoner to maintain continuity with his family life and deal
with family matters and settlement of life after release.
11. The reasons and objections provided in clause
635 and 636 to the Manual if considered, refusal of parole
to provide the petitioner an opportunity to meet his wife
and new-born child which he has no occasion to see the
child from its birth would deprive him to maintain social
relations with his family and deal with family matters.
12. Respondent No.3 has recommended not to
release the petitioner on parole on the basis of the
enquiries said to have been conducted with the petitioner’s
villagers. The reasons assigned in the report are vague
and without any basis. The report would not indicate who
are the persons objected his parole and under what
circumstances, the peace and harmony of the village would
9
be disturbed on release of the petitioner on parole. Hence,
report at Annexure – A is without any basis and application
of mind.
13. The respondent has not placed any material or
even sought to contend that the earlier release by order
dated 28.10.2021, the petitioner has violated the terms
and conditions of the parole.
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court
is of the view that Annexure – A is without any basis and is
to be quashed and writ petition is to succeed. Hence, the
following:
ORDER
1. Writ petition is allowed.
2. Annexure – A passed by respondent No.3 is
hereby quashed.
3. Respondent No.2 is directed to release the
petitioner on general parole for a period of
thirty days subject to the condition as has
10been imposed in the earlier order of parole
order dated 28.10.2021.
4. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
VBS
