Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 54535 (KAR)

LAKSHMI NARAYANA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/16882/2025 · 2025-08-21

B M Shyam Prasad

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32551 WP No. 16882 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 16882 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: LAKSHMI NARAYANA S/O THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/A HUSEN PURA POST, PAVGADA, TALUK, HUSEN PURA, TUMKUR, KARNATAKA-572136. …PETITIONER (BY MS. LIKITHA M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE SECRETARY OF HOME DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALORE 560001. Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32551 WP No. 16882 of 2025 2. CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CENTRAL PRISON PARAPANA AGRAHARA BANGALORE- 560100 REP BY AG. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. K.P. YASHODHA ., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF R-2 DATED 5.04.2025 BCP/CTP-SEC/350/2025 AT ANNX-A AND RELEASE PETITIONER BROTHER IN LAW ADINARAYANA (CONVICTED PRISONER NO. 9074) ON PAROLE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32551 WP No. 16882 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioner's relative, Sri Adinarayana, is convicted and sentenced to under to imprisonment for life for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code in SC No.221/2012 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madhugiri. The petitioner has filed an application for grant of parole asserting that the convict has served more than ten years of imprisonment and has not sought for parole in the past. The second respondent vide the impugned Endorsement dated 05.04.2025 has rejected the application. Mrs.K.P.Yashodha, the learned Additional Government Advocate, relies upon the report forwarded by the Superintendent of Police, Sri Sathya Sai District, Puttaparthi, to justify the decision and the relevant part of the afore report reads as under: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32551 WP No. 16882 of 2025 "The Sub-Inspector of Police, Somandepalli PS., has verified the contents of the petition and submitted his report that, there will be no safety to his life by his opponents in either Somandepalli Mandal or Madhugiri area. There may breach the peace leading to law and order problem. Hence, the Sub-Inspector of police, somandepalli PS has "NOT RECOMMENDED" for release of the convict prisoner J, Adinarayana s/o Peddamallappa, N/o Manchepalli village, Somandepalli Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District for parole. Further the Inspector of Police, Penukonda Circle also " NOT CONSIDARABLE" and submitted the same. Further SDPO, Penukonda also submitted the same." This Court must observe but for the amendment to Rule 191 of the Karnataka Police Rules 1963 with the introduction of proviso an application for parole in the prescribed form had to be considered by the Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services under the Karnataka Prisons and Correctional Services Manual 2021 [for short, 'the Manual 2021'], but the second respondent has considered the report and rejected the application because of the introduction. This Court in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32551 WP No. 16882 of 2025 W.P.No.11541/2025 [GM-POLICE] [disposed of on 19.08.2025] has opined that introduction of proviso to the aforesaid Rule was only to meet exigent circumstances and not for continuation of this arrangement beyond the Covid-19 difficult period when there is a detailed procedure under the Manual 2021. In the peculiarities of this case and given the circumstances in which the convict is admitted to parole, this Court is of the view that the Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services must consider the report and pass just orders within a reasonable time. Hence, the following: ORDER [A] The petition is allowed in part quashing the second respondent's impugned endorsement dated 05.04.2025 [Annexure-A] restoring the application for due consideration by the Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32551 WP No. 16882 of 2025 [B[ The petitioner is permitted to forward a copy of this order to the second respondent by email [cpblr.prisons-kar@gov.in.] who shall ensure that the entire file is placed before the Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services within a week from the date of the receipt thereof calling upon the afore Senior Officer to take a decision in the light of this Court's observation within the next two weeks. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA ct:sr