Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 39559
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
NC: 2025:KHC:41134
WP No. 17723 of 2025
BETWEEN
RADHAMMA
W/O JAYANNA, Y
MOTHER OF SRINIVASA CTP-01440,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/O NO GLLARAHATTI (KADUR TALLUK),
YEMMEDODDI, CHICKMAGALUR,
KARNATAKA-577548.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SIRAJUDDIN AHMED., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
HOME DEPARTMENT,
THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560001.
2. CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT
CENTRAL PRISON
SHIVAMOGGA - 577222.
…. RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. YASHODHA., AGA FOR R1 & R2)
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. SIRAJUDDIN AHMED
For the Respondents: SMT. YASHODHA
The court emphasized that parole is a privilege for rehabilitation, not a right, requiring a careful assessment of the convict's eligibility and the adequacy of police reports related to parole applications.
Headnote:(A) Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India - Karnataka Prisons Act, 1963 - Section 55 - Karnataka Prisons and Corrections Service Manual, 2021 - Request for parole by convict's mother denied by authorities - Court found the police report inadequate and perfunctory without clear justification for denial and emphasized the need for liberalized provisions for parole to maintain family ties - Release on parole for 30 days granted, subject to stipulated conditions. (Paras 1-17)
(B) Parole eligibility & conditions - General parole is a concession not a right - Regulations detail the process and conditions for granting parole, focusing on rehabilitation and maintaining family relations. (Paras 3, 4, 6, 16)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO RELEASE THE PETITIONERS SON SRINIVASA CTP-01440 ON GENERAL PAROLE FOR A PERIOD OF 30 DAYS WITH LIBERTY TO SEEK EXTENSION TO ENABLE HIM TO SUPERVISE AND COMPLETE THE RENOVATION OF THE CURRENT RESIDENCE WHICH IS PRESENTLY IN A DILAPIDATED CONDITION AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 13.10.2025, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CAV ORDER
1. The Petitioner who is the mother of the convict Srinivasa CTP-04140 is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
i. Direct the Respondent No.2 to release the petitioner’s son Srinivasa CTP-01440 on general parole for a period of 30 days with liberty to seek extension to enable him to supervise and complete the renovation of the current residence which is presently in a dilapidated condition.
ii. Pass any other order(s) which this court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.
2. The convict who is sentenced for imprisonment of ten years for the offences punishable under Section 4 of POCSO Act and Section 376(2)(6) of the IPC in Spl.C.(P).No.25/2023 by the District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-I, Chikkamagaluru. As on 15.05.2025, the petitioner has been in custody for a period of 2 years 3 months 21 days. An application for parole was made by the mother of the petitioner to assist in the repair of the house of the petitioner and the convict, which application having been rejected, the Petitioner is before this Court.
3. Regulation 635 of the Karnataka Prisoners and Corrections Service Manual, 2021 reads as under:
"i. Section 55 of the Karnataka Prisons Act, 1963 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.
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;
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."
4. A perusal of the Regulation would indicate that under Section 55 of the Karnataka Prisons Act, 1963 and Rule 191 of the Karnataka Prisons Rules, 1974, the State Government or any authority is empowered to release the convict temporarily. Various reasons have been attributed. One of the reasons is that general parole or 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 al
