Parole Is A Valuable Right Under Article 21, Cannot Be Denied Based On Mechanical Police Reports: Karnataka High Court - 2025-09-27

Parole a Valuable Constitutional Right, Cannot Be Denied Mechanically, Says Karnataka High Court

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court, in a significant ruling, has reinforced that the grant of parole is a "valuable right" of a convict under Article 21 of the Constitution and cannot be denied based on "perfunctory" and "mechanical" police reports. Justice Suraj Govindaraj made these observations while granting 60 days of parole to a murder convict to care for his ailing mother.

The Court also directed the Director General of Police to instruct officers on the proper application of the Karnataka Prison Manual, suggesting training if necessary, to prevent the submission of identically worded, non-reasoned reports in parole applications.

---

Case Background

The writ petition was filed by Ms. Chotti Bee, seeking the release of her son, Saddam (CTP No. 4426), on general parole for 90 days. Saddam was convicted for an offense under Section 302 of the IPC (murder) and has been incarcerated since February 2017.

The petitioner sought parole on the grounds of her own illness. While the prison authorities had verified the application and recommended the release, the parole was not granted. The denial was based on an adverse police report and the fact that the convict's separate application for suspension of sentence was pending in a criminal appeal.

Arguments Presented

• Petitioner's Counsel, Shri Sirajuddin Ahmed, argued for the release of the convict on parole, emphasizing the genuine need for him to care for his sick mother and highlighting the positive recommendation from prison authorities.

• Learned Additional Government Advocate, Shri Sharad V. Magadum, representing the State, opposed the petition. He contended that parole could not be granted because a criminal appeal (Criminal Appeal No.200218/2023) was pending, in which an application for suspension of sentence had been filed and opposed by the State. The adverse police report was also cited as a primary reason for the denial.

Court's Rationale and Key Observations

Justice Suraj Govindaraj strongly criticized the police report, describing it as a "mechanical report" submitted without considering the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Prison Manual.

"A perfunctory rejection has been made in terms of the police report, without considering the actual facts. This Court is coming across several of these reports, which are identically worded, without any application of the mind," the Court noted.

The judgment underscored the importance of parole in the justice system, linking it to the constitutional right to life and personal liberty.

"The grant of parole is a valuable right of a convict, which would also be a right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and as such, it would be required for the concerned authorities to apply their mind in a proper manner and pass a reasoned order on a case to case basis..."

The Court also drew a clear distinction between an application for suspension of sentence (bail) pending appeal and an application for parole. It explained that bail allows a convict to be released for the entire duration of the appeal's consideration, whereas parole is a temporary release for a limited period, governed by different principles outlined in the Prison Manual.

Highlighting the rehabilitative aspect of punishment, the Court observed, "One of the objectives of punishment is reformation; such reformation cannot be achieved if the convict is distanced from society. On release, the convict would also have to be integrated into society."

Final Decision and Directions

Finding that the parole had been denied solely due to the "mechanical police report," the High Court partly allowed the writ petition.

The Court directed the authorities to release Saddam on general parole for a period of 60 days to take care of his mother's illness. The release is subject to conditions, including:

1. The prisoner must mark his attendance at the jurisdictional police station once a week.

2. The authorities shall stipulate strict conditions to ensure his return to jail and prevent any offense during the parole period.

The Court also granted liberty to the petitioner to file for an extension of parole if the requirements are met.