SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 1647

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M.NAGAPRASANNA
haseena taj – Appellant
Versus
state of karnataka – Respondent


Petitioner Advocates:SIRAJUDDIN AHMED ,Respondent Advocate:

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court seeking grant of parole to her son, who is said to be in judicial custody for the last 10 years having been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302, 120(B), 506 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in SC No.35/2015.

2. Heard Shri Sirajuddin Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Rahul Cariappa, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 and 2.

3. Shri Sirajuddin Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the reason for seeking parole is the mother's illness. The illness has been persisting for the last one year is his submission and the petitioner's son has not been on parole even once.

4. The learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State would oppose grant of parole on the score that the petitioner's son is involved in three other crimes which are of 10years vintage for offence punishable under Section 323 or 324, otherwise. Be that as it may.

5. Pendency of those crimes for the last 10years will not come in the way or cause any impediment for grant of parole to the petitioner's son.

6. In the light of the aforesaid circumstances, the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top