- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19306 WP No. 10177 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 10177 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: PHARVIN W/O SHAVAHAL HAMEED M/O RAFIK @ MUNNA CTP-807 AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT 155, 2ND STAGE, RML NAGARD NEAR KALANDARIYA MASJID, SHIMOGA, KARNATAKA -577201 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SIRAJUDDIN AHMED.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA HOME DEPARTMENT, THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 2. CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON BELAGAVI-591108. 3. SHO SAGAR TOWN P.S MYSURU-577401 (JURISDICTIONAL POLICE STATION) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA) Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19306 WP No. 10177 of 2026 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TODIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER'S SON RAFIK @ MUNNA CTP-807 ON GENERAL PAROLE FOR A PERIOD OF 90 DAYS CITING THAT THE PETITIONER'S SON WHO IS THE CONVICT PRISONER IN BELAGAVI CENTRAL PRISON NEED TO TAKE CARE OF HER AILING MOTHER, THE PRESENCE OF THE CONVICT IS ESSENTIAL FOR PURPOSE TO LOOK AFTER HER AILING MOTHER AS SHE IS SUFFERING FROM TYPE2 DM (MODERATE GLUCOSE CONTROL) HYPERTENSION/OBESITY GRADE III/ RECURRENT ACUTE EX. COPD EPISODES AND OTHER SERIOUS DISEASES. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER Captioned petition is filed seeking a mandamus against second respondent to release petitioner's son Rafiq alias Munna on general parole for a period of 90 days on the ground that petitioner's son needs to take care of his ailing mother and therefore presence of convict is essential. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19306 WP No. 10177 of 2026 3. Though the learned Additional Government Advocate has vehemently opposed the petition, placing reliance on the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, which is produced at Annexure–“F”, this Court is not persuaded to accept the objections so raised. A careful perusal of the said report indicates that the objections are couched in general and omnibus terms, without reference to any specific or proximate material warranting denial of parole. 4. On examining the custody certificate placed on record, it is evident that the petitioner has undergone incarceration for a substantial period of 17 years, 7 months and 1 day as on the date of issuance of the said certificate. The custody certificate does not disclose any adverse conduct, disciplinary infraction, or untoward incident attributable to the petitioner during the long period of incarceration. In the absence of any such adverse material, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioner has remained in custody for more than - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19306 WP No. 10177 of 2026 17 years. The report of the Superintendent of Police, being vague and lacking in specific particulars, does not inspire confidence so as to outweigh the satisfactory conduct reflected in the custody certificate. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the said report cannot be given determinative weight in denying the relief sought. 5. At the outset, it is necessary to reiterate that parole is not a matter of grace or charity, but is an integral component of the reformative theory of punishment, which has received constitutional recognition as part of a humane and balanced criminal justice system. The object underlying grant of parole is to enable a convict to maintain familial and social ties, to attend to personal exigencies, and to facilitate gradual reintegration into society. Therefore, denial of parole cannot be mechanical, nor can it be founded on vague or speculative apprehensions. Such denial must be supported by cogent, substantial, and credible material indicating a real and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19306 WP No. 10177 of 2026 imminent threat to public order, safety, or the administration of justice. 6. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that there is no substantive material placed on record to justify denial of parole. On the contrary, the long period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, coupled with the absence of any adverse conduct in custody, tilts the balance in favour of granting limited relief. This Court is also of the view that any perceived apprehension can be adequately addressed by imposing stringent and appropriate conditions, including regulating the movements of the detenue and safeguarding the interests of the victim’s family. Having regard to the fact that the incident in question occurred nearly 18 years ago, and considering the totality of the circumstances, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of parole. 7. Accordingly, the following order is passed: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19306 WP No. 10177 of 2026 ORDER (i) The writ petition is hereby allowed; (ii) The respondents are directed to release the convict, namely Dharanikumar P.K., bearing CTP No.807, on general parole for a period of 90 (ninety) days from the date of his actual release; (iii) The release of the detenue shall be subject to his furnishing an undertaking before the competent authority that he shall maintain good conduct and shall not indulge in any unlawful or prejudicial activities during the period of parole; (iv) The respondents are at liberty to impose appropriate and stringent conditions, including but not limited to: (a) requiring the detenue to report before the jurisdictional police station at such intervals as may be prescribed; - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19306 WP No. 10177 of 2026 (b) restricting his movement to a specified geographical area; (c) ensuring that he does not, directly or indirectly, establish contact or communication with the victim or the victim’s family members; (v) The detenue shall surrender before the jurisdictional prison authorities immediately upon expiry of the parole period, without fail; (vi) In the event of violation of any of the conditions imposed, the parole granted under this order shall stand liable to be cancelled forthwith, in accordance with law; (vii) Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to seek extension of parole, if permissible under the applicable rules and in accordance with law; (viii) The Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this order forthwith to the concerned prison authorities, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19306 WP No. 10177 of 2026 including through electronic mode, to ensure immediate compliance. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 79