Dig itally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF R2 BEARING NO.BCP/J3/1109/2026 DATED 16/03/2026 AT ANNX-A AND ALLOW RELEASE PETITIONERS FATHER MUTHAPPA BSAPPA SAVADHI (CTP NO.14001) ON PAROLE.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner, who is the daughter of a convict, has filed the captioned writ petition seeking directions against the respondents to grant parole to the convict.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned AGA.

3. The material on record would indicate that the convict, who stands sentenced to imprisonment for life for the offence of having caused the death of his wife, is presently lodged in the Central Prison, Bengaluru. The custody certificate placed before this Court reveals that the convict has undergone incarceration for a period of 9 years, 8 months and 21 days as on 06.04.2026. The application submitted by the convict seeking grant of parole has been declined by the competent Authority primarily on two grounds, namely: (i) that there exists a likelihood of the convict violating the conditions of parole; and (ii) that in view of the nature of the offence, there is an apprehended threat to the life of the convict at the hands of the victim’s family members.

4. This Court has carefully examined the reasons assigned by the Authority in light of the records made available. It is evident that the rejection of parole is founded more on conjectural apprehensions than on any tangible or cogent material. The opposition to the grant of parole, as reflected in the records, appears to be omnibus in nature, without substantiating the alleged risks by reference to any past conduct or specific incident attributable to the convict.

5. At the outset, it requires to be emphasized that parole is not a matter of largesse or charity, but is an integral component of the reformative theory of punishment, which has received constitutional imprimatur as part of a humane and progressive criminal justice system. The underlying object of parole is to enable a convict to preserve familial and social ties, attend to pressing personal exigencies, and facilitate gradual reintegration into society.

6. In the present case, the fact that the petitioner being the daughter of the convict has approached this Court seeking his release on parole, prima facie, indicates that the familial bonds between the convict and his children continue to subsist notwithstanding the unfortunate incident culminating in the conviction. This circumstance assumes significance while assessing the necessity and propriety of temporary release.

7. The grounds cited by the Authority, namely, a mere apprehension that the convict may violate parole conditions or that there exists a threat to his life, cannot, in the absence of credible supporting material, constitute valid reasons to deny parole. Such speculative considerations, if accepted, would defeat the very object of parole jurisprudence.

8. In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that the convict had been released on parole on an earlier occasion and had scrupulously adhered to all conditions imposed, surrendering before the prison authorities upon expiry of the parole period without any infraction. The imprisonment record does not disclose any adverse remarks or instances of misconduct. On the contrary, the conduct of the convict during incarceration is stated to be satisfactory. No untoward incident has been reported either during his previous release or within the prison.

9. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the apprehensions expressed by the Authority can be adequately safeguarded by imposing stringent and tailo