SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sri Venkatesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 December, 2023

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
10

been imposed in the earlier order of parole
order dated 28.10.2021.

4. No order as to costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE

VBS

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2024 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation