- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11631 WP No. 107896 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 107896 OF 2024 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: M PARASHIVAMURTHY S/O. MADAYYA, AGE 47 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/O: TAMBADAIPURA, TQ. T NARSIPUR DIST. MYSORE. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA A. PUROHIT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPT. OF LAW, JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS, BENGALURU 560001 2. THE SECRETARY, DEPT. OF HOME PRISON AND CRIME, BANGALORE 560001 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS SHESHADRI ROAD, BENGALURU 01 4. THE OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE MYSORE DIST MYSORE Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11631 WP No. 107896 of 2024 5. THE CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CENTRAL PRISON, MYSORE DIST. MYSORE 6. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MYSORE DIST. MYSORE 7. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR BILIKERI POLICE STATION TQ. HUNASURU, DIST. MYSORE …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA FOR R1 TO R7) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, SETTING ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 4, DATED. 20-07-2024 VIDE BEARING NO. DCRB/MY/PAROLE RAJE/15/2024 ANNEXURE-D AS NULL AND VOID, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11631 WP No. 107896 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: i. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari setting aside the endorsement issued by the R4 dated 20.7.2024 vide bearing No. DCRB/MY/Parole Raje/15/2024 Annexure-D as null and void, in the interest of justice and equity. ii. To issue writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the R5 and R7 to release the petitioner on parole for a period of 30 days by considering his claim in the interest of justice and equity. iii. Issue any other writ or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice and equity. 2. The Petitioner had been convicted in S.C.No.21/2009 for life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. An appeal having been filed in Crl.A.No.100246/2014, the same also came to be dismissed on 23.07.2019. 3. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for parole for a period of 30 days on the ground that he needs to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11631 WP No. 107896 of 2024 cultivate the agricultural land, as his wife is handicapped and his children are minors, and there is nobody to take care of the agricultural land. 4. The submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner is that the Petitioner has so far spent 8 years, 4 months, and 11 days in incarceration, and as such, the Petitioner ought to be permitted 30 days parole, taking into account that his conduct has been satisfactory. 5. Sri Sharad V. Magadum, learned AGA appearing for the Respondents, however, opposes the same on the ground that there is a flight risk insofar as the Petitioner is concerned inasmuch as once when earlier parole was granted for a period of 30 days, the Petitioner did not comply with the terms of the parole and report back to the Jail Authorities, he had escaped parole from 15.09.2011 to 26.09.2017 for a period of 2204 days. It is on the conviction being confirmed in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11631 WP No. 107896 of 2024 Crl.A.No.100246/2014 that the presence of the Petitioner was secured by issuance of a conviction warrant. His submission is that if the Petitioner were to be granted parole now, there is every chance of the Petitioner once again jumping parole. 6. The fact of earlier parole having been granted and the petitioner having escaped parole from 15.09.2011 to 26.09.2017 is not in dispute. The said fact has also not been averred in the petition which has been filed, except to give reasons for the present parole. The past conduct of the petitioner and/or explanation for the same has not been provided in the petition. 7. This, in my considered opinion, would also amount to suppression of material fact for the purpose of consideration of the application for parole. Taking that fact into account, as also the fact that the Petitioner had earlier escaped parole for nearly 6 years, I am of the opinion that the learned AGA is right in submitting - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11631 WP No. 107896 of 2024 that the petitioner is a flight risk and if parole is granted, he is likely to escape parole once again. 8. In that view of the matter, the petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE KTY/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43