- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30466 WP No. 11924 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 11924 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: SUDHA W/O JAGADEESH CHANDRA URAS CTP 13460 AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O NO. 16, 3RD A MAIN ROAD, TULASAMMA LAYOUT, NEAR LAKSHMINARASHIM SWAMY TEMPLE, MANORAYANA PALYA, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA 560032. &PETITIONER (BY SRI.SPARSH SHETTY., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA HOME DEPARTMENT, THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560001. 2. CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON, BANGALORE - 560100. &RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.K.P. YASHODHA., AGA) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30466 WP No. 11924 of 2025 THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO RELEASE PETITIONER'S CONVICT HUSBAND JAGADEESH CHANDRA URAS CTP- 13460 ON GENERAL PAROLE FOR A PERIOD OF 30 DAYS WITH FURTHER EXTENSION OF 60 DAYS ON THE GROUND THAT ILLNESS OF CONVICT FATHER WHICH IS ISSUED BY THE BMCRI. THE PRESENCE OF PETITIONER'S HUSBAND WHO IS A CONVICT IS ESSENTIAL TO PROVIDE MEDICAL CARE FOR EFFECTIVE TREATMENT AND RECOVERY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner, wife of a convict, has sought for parole for her husband essentially contending that her father-in-law is seriously ill. This Court has called upon the learned Additional Government Advocate to respond in the light of this request, and the learned Additional Government Advocate places on record a Report from Hebbal Police Station, Bengaluru stating that the petitioner and her family members do not reside at the address mentioned for - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30466 WP No. 11924 of 2025 over a decade and necessary medical details are not furnished to verify whether the petitioner is justified in her case that her husband, for emergency reasons, must be granted parole. When queried in the light of this response, the learned counsel for the petitioner proposes to argue for General Parole. This Court is of the view that this petition cannot be entertained, and if the petitioner makes out a case for General Parole, it must be on an independent cause of action. Hence, without prejudice to file such application as contemplated under the Karnataka Prisons and Correctional Services Manual, 2021, the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA ct:sr