- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35462 WP No. 25195 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 25195 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: POORNIMA R D/O RAJU C, W/O PRASADA @ GUNDA CTP.NO 01042@GUNDA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT NO.47/1, 1 MAIN ROAD, NANDINI LAYOUT, BANGALORE 560096. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAVEEN J, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MOHANKUMARA D., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35462 WP No. 25195 of 2025 DEPARTMENT OF HOME, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 2. CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CENTRAL PRISON, MYSORE, ASHOKA ROAD NEAR FUN TIME CIRCLE MYSORE-570007. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. K P YASHODHA, AGA) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 ABD 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE R2 TO CONSIDER THE RESPONDENT OF THE PETITIONER DATED 07.08.2025 WHEREIN THE PETITIONER HAS SOUGHT FOR RELEASED OF DETENUE-PRASADA @ GUNDA CTP NO. 01042 ON PAROLE FOR A PERIOD OF 60 DAYS VIDE ANNEXURE - A AND ETC., - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35462 WP No. 25195 of 2025 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 seeks parole of her husband who is sentenced to life imprisonment in different proceedings. The petitioner asserts that her husband must be admitted to emergency parole because she is in the family way and she will need his support. The petitioner relies upon an application filed with the second respondent [Annexure-A] which is not in the prescribed format. Sri Naveen J, the learned counsel for the petitioner, arguing to support the petition submits that the petitioner’s husband stands trial in another case in CC No. 8101/2020, but is admitted to bail on - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35462 WP No. 25195 of 2025 03.03.2020. As pointed out by Smt.K.P.Yashodha, the learned Additional Government Advocate, an application had to be filed in the prescribed form for parole, but the petitioner has not. The question is: should the petitioner's husband be denied parole at this stage when it is not in dispute that he is in custody for over four years and ten months and the petitioner is in the family way. This question is answered in the light of the afore circumstances. There is nothing on record except the pending case [where he is admitted to bail] as a condition against grant of emergency parole. The petitioner's husband is admitted to parole earlier. The petitioner has filed a copy of a detailed record issued by the Medical Education, Women and Child Development Department to establish that she is in the final term of the pregnancy. In the peculiarities, this Court is of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35462 WP No. 25195 of 2025 the view that the petitioner's husband must be admitted to parole on terms. Hence, the following: ORDER [a] The petition is allowed. [b] The second respondent is directed to grant general parole to the petitioner's husband subject to the terms as contemplated under the Karnataka Prisons and Correctional Services Manual 2021 on receipt of a certified copy of this order. [c] The second respondent shall impose such conditions as shall be necessary to ensure that the petitioner's husband marks attendance regularly with the jurisdictional police. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35462 WP No. 25195 of 2025 [d] The learned counsel for the petitioner is reserved liberty to file a certified copy of this order with the second respondent [by email: cpmys.prisons-kar@gov.in] addressed to the Chief Superintendent of Police, Central Prisons, Mysuru. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE AN/-