Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 47437 (KAR)

SUDHA WIFE OF CONVICT v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/101243/2025 · 2025-06-30

Pradeep Singh Yerur

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8187 WP No. 101243 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 101243 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: SUDHA WIFE OF CONVICT SUNDARESH S/O. MANJAYYA (CTP NO.3878) AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O. BELAGOLA, BOGGASE, BOGASE, CHIKKAMAGALURU, KARNATAKA -577 130. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. UMME SALMA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, HOME DEPARTMENT, THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, DHARWAD, KARNATAKA-580 008. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.V. MAGADUM, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT (S), ORDER(S) OR DIRECTION(S) AND THEREBY; DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER’S HUSBAND NAMED SUNDARESH S/O. MANJAYYA (CTP NO.3878) ON GENERAL PAROLE FOR A PERIOD OF 90 DAYS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8187 WP No. 101243 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) The present petition is filed by the petitioner, who is the wife of a convict prisoner undergoing life imprisonment for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 448, 323, 324, 302 R/w. 149 IPC in S.C. No.13/2016. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner, who is the wife of the convict, that the convict has already undergone imprisonment for 8 years 5 months. The present petition is filed seeking parole of 90 days on the ground of medical treatment for the mother of the convict, i.e., the mother- in-law of the petitioner, who is suffering from Acute Hypertensive Crisis and is in a semi-conscious state. The husband of the petitioner is the only son. There is no other person to take care of her. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. It is further contended that though an application/representation was filed with the jail - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8187 WP No. 101243 of 2025 authorities, the same has not been considered. It is the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution to ensure life and liberty of every citizen, which includes granting of parole. 4. Learned AGA appearing for the State contends that no application is filed before the jail authorities for consideration. Whenever parole is sought by the convict or the relatives of the convict, an application has to be made to the Superintendent of Police or jail authorities, stating the reasons for grant of parole. Upon such application being made, the jailor will consider the same, as required under Sections 55 and 56 of the Karnataka Prisons Act, 1963. Upon such application, the authorities would pass suitable orders. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner counters that the application/representation has been sent by the petitioner, which has not been accepted. No action has been taken, and hence she is before this Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8187 WP No. 101243 of 2025 6. In the present case, though there is an application filed at Annexure-A, the same has not been given to the authorities. Hence, the application which is annexed to this petition shall be considered by the respondent State, and suitable orders shall be passed in accordance with law. 7. Under the circumstances, I pass the following: ORDER i. This petition is disposed of. ii. Respondents shall consider this petition as well as the representation given at Annexure-A as an application/representation for consideration of grant of parole, and they shall pass suitable orders in accordance with law, not later than 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8187 WP No. 101243 of 2025 iii. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach this Court in case of non-grant of parole by the respondents. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE gab CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2