YALLAVVA v. COURT OF KARNATAKA
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 302, 307, 326, 504
Judgment
(BY SRI. I.Y. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, HOME DEPARTMENT, THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.
THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, PRISONS AND CORRECTIONAL DEPARTMENT, NO.4, SHESHADRI ROAD, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560009.
THE CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON, P.B. ROAD, DHARWAD-580008. - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:624 WP No. 109785 of 2025 HC-KAR
THE POLICE SUPERINTENDENT, HAVERI, DIST. HAVERI-581110.
POLICE INSPECTOR, KAGINELE POLICE STATION, TQ. BYADAGI, DIST. HAVERI-581110. (BY SMT. GIRIJA S.HIREMATH, HCGP) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29.11.2025 I.E. ANNEXURE-“C” AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO RELEASE THE SON OF THE PETITIONER'S I.E. CONVICT NAMELY BASAVARAJA S/O. NAGAPPA KURUBARA (CTP NO.-5133) ON GENERAL PAROLE FOR A PERIOD OF 90 DAYS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC.,. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:624 WP No. 109785 of 2025 HC-KAR ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer: “PRAYER WHEREFORE, it is most humbly prayed before this Hon’ble Court that, be pleased to- A. Issue a writ in nature of mandamus to direct the respondent no.3 to consider the representation dated 29.11.2025 i.e. Annexure-“C”. B. And Direct the Respondent No.3 to release the son of the Petitioner’s i.e convict namely Basavaraja S/O Nagappa Kurubara (CTP No.-5133) on General parole for a period of 90 days in the Interest of Justice. C. Grant such other relief/s that this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”
2. The petitioner is the mother of convict who is lodged in Central Prison Dharwad and undergoing the sentence of life imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 302, 307, 326, 504 of IPC. It is submitted that the petitioner’s son has already undergone the actual period of 7 years 6 months 6 days as on 13.12.2025. It is stated that the petitioner is suffering from sever lower back pain, due to which she is unable to walk and sit and currently she is on bed rest. Hence, presence of the convict is necessary to take care of his mother. The son of the petitioner has made representation on 29.11.2025 to respondent - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:624 WP No. 109785 of 2025 HC-KAR No.3 for grant of general parole for the purpose of taking care of his mother. Respondent No.3 sought report from respondent No.4 on 04.12.2025. It is stated that till today, respondent No.4 has not submitted the report to respondent No.3. Hence, no order is passed by respondent No.3. Hence, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner having left with no other alternative and efficacious remedy.
Operative part
3. As per Rule 191 of the Karnataka Prisons Rules, 1974, if no report is received from the Magistrate and the Station House Officer within 15 days, it is presumed that there is no adverse report against the prisoner. In the light of the same, the respondent No.3 ought to have considered the case of the convict in accordance with law i.e., whether he is entitled for parole or not. The respondent No.3 cannot keep the matter pending without considering their case for parole only on the ground that no report is received. It is contrary to Rule 191 of the Karnataka Prisons Rules, 1974. Hence, this Court is passing the following: - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:624 WP No. 109785 of 2025 HC-KAR ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the representation dated 29.11.2025 within a period of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. ii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. Sd/- JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MEG CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 302, 307, 326, 504.
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.