- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2 WP No. 105103 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO.105103 OF 2024 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: KUM MANJULA IRAPPA HONGAL, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: PRISON, R/O: CTP NO. 3464 CENTRAL PRISON, BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI RAGHAVENDRA A. PUROHIT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECTETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS, BANGALORE – 560 001. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME , PRISON AND CRIME, BANGALORE – 560 001. 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL POLICE AND INSPECTOR Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2 WP No. 105103 of 2024 GENERAL OF PRISONS, SHESHADRI ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DHARWAD – 580 001. 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL PRISON HINDALAGA, BELAGAVI – 591 108. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA FOR R1 TO R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INIDA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI SETTING ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 13/05/2024 BEARING NO.KEKABE/JC2/PAROLE/2024-25, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.5 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AS NULL AND VOID. TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.4 AND 5 TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON PAROLE FOR 30 DAYS PERIOD BY CONSIDERING HER CLAIM IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2 WP No. 105103 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the connected matter, concerning co-accused, parole sought by a co-accused is dismissed in W.P.No.105032/2024. In that light, the learned counsel would submit that the same order would be applicable to the petitioner as well. 2. The Coordinate Bench of this Court while dismissing the petition, has held as follows: “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Raghavendra Purohit and learned HCGP for respondents- State. 2. Petitioner is before this Court seeking to quash the proceedings of respondent No.5- vide Annexure-C, who on the basis of report submitted by respondent No.4 has rejected the parole request. Petitioner has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302 and 506 of IPC in Sessions Case No.204/2008 is undergoing imprisonment for life by the order dated 30.07.2014. Despite an appeal being preferred against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the same came to be dismissed confirming the Judgment of conviction rendered by the trial Court. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2 WP No. 105103 of 2024 3. It is the case of petitioner that she is in judicial custody since the year 2008 for more than 16 years. Petitioner was once released on parole on 27.04.2023 by virtue of an order passed in Writ Petition No.102358/2023 by this Court. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner does not have any other criminal antecedents and she gave a representation to respondent No.5 five to release her on parole for the reason that she wants to cultivate her land. The said letter was forwarded to respondent No.4 for securing information and opinion with regard to releasing the petitioner on parole. Respondent No.4 has evaluated and provided a negative opinion for the request of release of parole of the petitioner on the ground that there is life threat to the relatives of victim by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that based on the opinion expressed by respondent No.4, respondent No.5 issued endorsement rejecting the application of the petitioner for release on parole, which is questioned here. 4. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that father of the petitioner died on 21.11.2023 and her mother is 75 years aged and due to her old age, she is unable to look after the agricultural land, which is lying barren and vacant. Hence, there is requirement of the petitioner to be released on parole for taking care of the land and to plough the land. Hence a requisition was made for release on parole which has been arbitrarily rejected without application of mind and the same requires to be set aside and consequently, the petitioner to be granted parole. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2 WP No. 105103 of 2024 5. Per contra, the learned HCGP representing the State vehemently contends that the only reason sought for release on parole is on the ground that the land of petitioner's mother requires to be ploughed and cultivated. There is no inherent requirement of the petitioner for taking care of the land. It is contended that some other persons could be engaged and on the contrary, there are complaints and objections raised by the complainant-victims contending that there is an imminent threat to the complainants in case of release of parole of the petitioner and their life would be in danger. Considering these aspects of threat and complaints and objections raised and on the opinion of respondent No.4, respondent No.5 rejected the application, seeking parole which is correctly done it does not stem from any ill will or arbitrariness. Under the circumstances, learned HCGP seeks to dismiss the petition as being devoid of merits. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondents, it is to be seen while granting parole, what is the requirement and imminent urgency for grant of parole. The urgency shown is only with regard to cultivation of land and ploughing of land, which could be organized by the petitioner or the surviving members through another person other than the petitioner. The second important aspect is the opinion expressed by respondent No.4 on the basis of complaint received by the complainant and victims that there being an apparent imminent threat to their life and safety and security, if the petitioner is released on parole. This being the main reason, a negative opinion is given by - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2 WP No. 105103 of 2024 respondent No.4 for release of parole, which is accepted by respondent No.5 and has rightly rejected the application for parole. 7. As stated earlier, parole can be granted to the petitioner to fulfill certain requirements, which could only be done by the petitioner and no one else and on the basis of her antecedents and on a clean chit or a report given by respondent No.4 on the basis of opinion, complaints from the complainants/victims. In the present case on hand, both the points for consideration being negative. The respondent No.5 has rightly rejected the application for parole. This Court does not find any urgency or immediate requirement or need for the petitioner to be released on parole. Under the circumstances, the reasons assigned by respondent No.5 do not call for any interference. This petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER This petition is dismissed.” 3. In the aforesaid light, petition is dismissed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE KGK/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19