- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50043 WP No. 8666 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 8666 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: FATHIMA ASGAR ALI C., C/O ASGAR ALI ABDEALI C., SULEMAN KHADRI CTP - 01125 SISTER OF YUSUF BACHCHAKHAN @ YUSUF AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/O 178/1, BLOCK A.G.F.3 HBR LAYOUT 1ST STAGE, 2ND BLOCK BENGALURU, KARNATAKA – 563 115. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SIRAJUDDIN AHMED, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE UNDER SECRETARY (JUDICIAL WING) GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS HALL NO. 17, 2ND FLOOR MAJOR DHYAN CHAND NATIONAL STADIUM INDIA GATE, NEW DELHI – 110 002 Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50043 WP No. 8666 of 2025 REPRESENTED BY ASGI/DSGI. 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA HOME DEPARTMENT THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY AGA. 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE PRISONS AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES SHESHADRI – ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY AGA. 4. THE LIFE CONVICTS RELEASE COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001. 5. CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON MYSORE – 570 007. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V.G.BHANUPRAKASH, AAG A/W., SMT. K.P.YASHODHA, AGA FOR R2 TO R5; SRI H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN, DSGI FOR R1) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO RELEASE THE PETITIONERS BROTHER YUSUF BACHCHAKHAN AT YUSUF SULEMAN KHADRI CTP 01125 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50043 WP No. 8666 of 2025 PREMATURELY IN THE LIGHT OF THE GUIDELINES OF APEX COURT IN SHAFARAT ALI CASE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner, the sister of the convict – Yusuf Bachkan @ Yusuf Suleman Khadri, is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: "a) Direct the Respondents to release the petitioner’s Brother YUSUF BACHCHANKHAN @ YUSUF SULEMAN KHADRI CTP – 01125 prematurely in the light of the guidelines of Apex Court in Shafarat Ali’s Case. b) Pass any other order(s) which this court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he does not wish to press prayer ‘a’, which is already observed in the order sheet dated 29.10.2025 and his submission that he would not wish to press the prayer for premature - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50043 WP No. 8666 of 2025 release, since the Life Convicts Release Committee has rejected his request, is taken on record. 3. Learned counsel for the detenue had also submitted that he would only keep the above petition alive, insofar as the request for parole is concerned. 4. The grounds urged for parole by the detenue is that, the convict is undergoing treatment for piles and other ailments and as such, he would require some more time for treatment and that the treatment at the government hospital is not proper. The said application for parole came to be rejected by the respondents on the ground that the convict was classified as a habitual criminal for the purpose of the Rules and who had more than three convictions against him. 5. Relying on the objections statement, which has been filed by the learned Additional Advocate General submits that on an earlier occasion, when the detenue was on bail, the detenue had again involved in an offence of extortion under Section 384 of the IPC as regards, which a further criminal complaint has been registered and on that - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50043 WP No. 8666 of 2025 ground, he submitted that there is a breach of the conditions of parole, which had been imposed by this Court. As such, the detenue ought not to be granted parole. 6. Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India submits that there being several cases against the convict, some of them are under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 and there are also several complaints, which are pending within the jurisdiction of Bombay and as such, parole may not be granted to the convict. 7. Learned counsel for the detenue by relying on the e-mail, which has been produced along with the petition, submits that the detenue has not been involved in any offence of extortion, but someone else is making use of his name for such extortion activities and on that ground he submits that the convict is sought to be fixed in those proceedings. 8. A perusal at the copy of the email which has been produced along with the memo of documents filed on 02.05.2025 indicates that the said email has not been - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50043 WP No. 8666 of 2025 sent by the convict but by his learned counsel. It is rather strange that a learned counsel is writing the e-mail in the manner, it is written to the Commissioner of Police. 9. The learned counsel is warned about such e-mails being sent and this Court shall view seriously in future, if the learned counsel would resort to such acts and serious action would be taken. 10. The e-mail sent by the learned counsel cannot be said that it is the one sent by the convict – detenue and it appears that the wordings in the said e-mail have been arrived upon, is as an alibi, which would be subject to trial in the pending criminal proceedings against the detenue. There are serious allegations against the convict with regard to breach of the terms of the parole and he is involved in further offence, regards which a FIR is registered and in the opinion of this Court, grant of parole cannot be made in favour of the detenue, though the convict has been incarcerated for a period of 23 years. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50043 WP No. 8666 of 2025 11. No ground being made out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition is dismissed. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 19 CT:SS