- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20749 WP No. 12009 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 12009 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: 1. KUPPAN W/O LATE LAKSHMAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT MANDARAVALLI VILLAGE CHICKMAGALURU DISTRICT -577228 PETITIONER'S SON SURESH (CTP 01395) S/O KUPPUSWAMY AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT KRISHNAPURA VILLAGE, LINGADAHALLI HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT -577228 (NOW PETITIONER'S SON IS IN CUSTODY DISTRICT PRISON, SHIVAMOGGA) …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KARIAPPA N A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY LINGADAHALLI POLICE STATION, CHIKKAMAGALURU -577228 2. ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETORY DEPARTMENT OF HOME AND PRISON VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE 560001 3. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF PRISON Digitally signed by VIDYA G R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20749 WP No. 12009 of 2025 AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES NO -4 SESHADRI ROAD BANGALORE -560009 4. CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT DISTRICT PRISON SHIVAMOGGA - 577204 5. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CHIKKAMAGALURU-577228 (RESPONDENT.NO.1 TO 5 ON REPRESENTED BY LEARNT GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560001) …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. K.P.YASHODHA., AGA) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED. 24.12.2024 BY BEARING NUMBER DCRB/CC/PAROLE/15/2024 AS PER ANNX-A AS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND OPPRESSIVE, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought for enlarging his son on parole before the respondents - authorities and has sought for setting aside the report at Annexure A, whereby respondents - Authorities have made out an opinion to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Shivamogga, to the effect - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20749 WP No. 12009 of 2025 that there is no recommendation to make out a case for releasing the convict on parole. 2. It is the case of the convict that he had sought for parole for the purpose of agricultural activities of the land belonging to his parents. It is his further case that he is the only son of petitioner. It is submitted that the refusal to recommend in terms of the report at Annexure- A is on two grounds, i.e., there may be threat to the victim who stays in the same village and that his wife is not agreeable for the convict to be released on parole. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the relationship of the convict with his wife is strained. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate upon oral direction of this Court has verified views of the petitioner which is not referred to in the report and the petitioner has stated that he has no objection for release of the convict on parole. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20749 WP No. 12009 of 2025 5. It is noticed that the convict has undergone sentence of 3 years and 5 months as on date i.e., roughly half of the sentence imposed. It is a settled position as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ashfaq v. State of Rajasthan - (2017) 15 SCC 55 regarding the objective of grant of parole which would include keeping in mind the temporary release of the prisoner to look after lands and parole may be granted in order to ensure integration of the prisoner into society when he eventually goes back. 6. Taking note of the report, it is to be noticed that the grounds made out in the report are not on relevant consideration. The grounds made out herein is a matter that requires consideration. In the facts of the present case, noticing the sentence imposed; that the convict has completed about half of the sentence; that it is his first application for parole; that the views of his parents have also been elicited and the other aspects are - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20749 WP No. 12009 of 2025 matters that could be taken note of by imposition of appropriate conditions. 7. Accordingly, respondent no. 4 is directed to pass orders taking note of the above observations regarding the application for parole. Such order to be passed within one week from today. The Court is of the view that the application of the convict for parole could be considered for a period of 45 days. the 4th respondent is at liberty to impose conditions as per the procedure and law applicable to ensure return of the detenue to the jail. 8. Accordingly, petition is disposed off. Registry to communicate this order to the Jail Authorities through electronic mail. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VP