(BY SRI. MAHAMMED ALI, ADVOCATE) v. (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR)
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Writ petition is allowed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 s. 302
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. However, this Court emphasizes that the decision to release a convict on parole must always balance the reformation of the convict with the safety and interests of society. Accordingly, the parole, if granted, should be subject to appropriate conditions ensuring that the convict does…
- Para 88. Accordingly, I pass the following; i. Writ petition is allowed. ORDER ii. The impugned endorsement dated 02.07.2024 issued by respondent No.4 at Annexure - A is hereby quashed. iii. Respondent No.4 is hereby directed to release the petitioner on parole for a period of…
Judgment
(BY SRI. MAHAMMED ALI, ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BY GOURIBIDANURU RURAL POLICE STATION, GAURIBIDANURU TALUK - 561 208.
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AND PRISON, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF PRISON …PETITIONER K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:36316 WP No. 22592 of 2024 AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, NO -4 SESHADRI ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 009.
CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, PARAPPANAAGRAHARA, BANGALORE - 560 100. (RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4 ON REPRESENTED BY LEARNED GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 1) QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 02.07.2024 AS PER ANNEXURE-B BEARING NO. BCP/CTP-SEC/57/2024 AS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND OPPRESSIVE AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER The petitioner has been convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment. Petitioner is seeking for a direction to the respondent to release him on parole as his presence is required to solemnization of marriage of his son, and also oversee the agricultural activities. - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:36316 WP No. 22592 of 2024
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State counsel representing the respondent authorities.
3. The convict has demonstrated good behavior during his imprisonment, and his presence is required for solemnization of his son's marriage. On an earlier occasion, he was released on parole and there are no adverse reports against the petitioner for violation of conditions of parole. Therefore, the petitioner is deserving of his release on parole.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent, while not disputing the long period of incarceration served by the convict, submits that any release on parole must be in strict compliance with the applicable rules and regulations governing the release of prisoners, and that such a decision should be made only after a thorough examination of the circumstances and inputs from the concerned authorities.
Upon careful consideration of the submissions made by both parties and the material placed on record, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has made out a sufficient case for consideration of parole. The petitioner's presence is required for the marriage of his son.
However, this Court emphasizes that the decision to release a convict on parole must always balance the reformation of the convict with the safety and interests of society. Accordingly, the parole, if granted, should be subject to appropriate conditions ensuring that the convict does not misuse his liberty. - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:36316 WP No. 22592 of 2024
Operative part
Accordingly, I pass the following; i. Writ petition is allowed. ORDER ii. The impugned endorsement dated 02.07.2024 issued by respondent No.4 at Annexure - A is hereby quashed. iii. Respondent No.4 is hereby directed to release the petitioner on parole for a period of 60 days from the date of his release. iv. The respondents are at liberty to impose such conditions as are normally stipulated to ensure the return of the convict to the prison. v. In the event of any violation of conditions will result in cancellation of the parole. vi. Registry to communicate this Order to the jail authorities through electronic mail. vii. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to seek extension of parole, if need arises. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE SNC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12 C: BHK
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Writ petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 302.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.