- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18727 WP No. 9560 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 9560 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: H.S. JAGADEESH S/O. HR SAMPATH LYENGAR, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT NO.5127, 5TH MAIN, 3RD CROSS, VIJAYANAGAR, MYSORE - 570 017 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KIRAN S.S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARIAT, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. THE CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18727 WP No. 9560 of 2026 CENTRAL PRISON, PARAPPANAGHRAHARA, BANGALORE - 580 100. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE ALI ASKER ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR, BANGALORE- 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.P. YOGANNA, AGA) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTIUTTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2/CENTRAL PRISON, BANGALORE, TO RELEASE THE PETITIONERS SON ON GENERAL PAROLE FOR A PERIOD OF 90 DAYS AND PRISONER CTP NO. 11311 CONVICTED BY THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DATED 12/06/2019 AS PER THE ANNEXURE-A, IN SC NO.744/2014 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC 120(B), 396, 397, 302, 201 OF IPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18727 WP No. 9560 of 2026 ORAL ORDER The petitioner has filed the captioned petition alleging inaction on the part of jail authorities in not considering his son's application seeking general parole. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner’s son, who stands convicted and is presently undergoing life imprisonment, has already completed 11 years 10 months of incarceration. It is contended that the request for grant of parole is not founded on any extraneous consideration but is premised on compelling humanitarian grounds, namely the precarious medical condition of him, who is stated to be suffering from health issues such as retinal infection due to diabetes hypertension. Placing reliance on the medical records as well as the order passed by a Coordinate Bench in W.P. No.31271/2024, learned counsel would submit that he needs surgery and is incapable of attending to his daily needs without assistance and requires constant care and further medical treatment. It is thus urged that the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18727 WP No. 9560 of 2026 presence of the detenue is indispensable to make necessary arrangements for his treatment and care. 3. Learned AGA, having secured original records, would point out that petitioner's application seeking general parole for a period of 90 days is rejected on the ground that proper surety is not furnished. 4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the material placed on record, this Court is required to examine the claim of the petitioner in the backdrop of the settled principles governing grant of parole. Parole, it is trite, is not a matter of right but is a reformative measure and a conditional release intended to enable a convict to maintain social and familial ties, especially in circumstances warranting humanitarian consideration. Courts have consistently held that in cases involving serious illness of close family members, temporary release on parole can be granted, subject to adequate safeguards, so as to balance the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18727 WP No. 9560 of 2026 societal interest with the individual’s right to attend to pressing family exigencies. 5. In the present case, the material on record, more particularly the imprisonment certificate, it is evident that the petitioner is convicted and undergoing sentence for the offence punishable under Sections 120(B), 396, 397, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner is sentenced for life imprisonment and he has undergone incarceration for a period of 11 years 10 months. On a specific query, the petitioner's counsel fairly concedes that the petitioner had availed remedy of parole on two occasions. The jail authorities have rejected the parole only on the ground that surety was not furnished to the satisfaction of the authorities. The fact that the petitioner is undergoing a sentence for life and has availed parole on two occasions, bearing in mind the principles governing parole, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has made out a case for the grant of general parole. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18727 WP No. 9560 of 2026 6. In that view of the matter, and while ensuring that adequate safeguards are imposed to secure the presence of the detenue and to prevent any misuse of liberty, this Court deems it appropriate to grant parole for a limited duration. 7. Accordingly, the following order is passed: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed; (ii) The respondents are directed to release the convict bearing CTP No.11311 on parole for a period of 90 days from the date of release, subject to the detenue furnishing an undertaking that he shall not indulge in any unlawful activities during the period of parole; (iii) The respondents shall impose such stringent conditions as are ordinarily stipulated, including conditions to ensure the timely surrender of the detenue upon expiry of the parole period; - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18727 WP No. 9560 of 2026 (iv) Any violation of the conditions imposed shall entail cancellation of parole forthwith; (v) Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to seek extension of parole, if permissible in law; (vi) The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the jurisdictional prison authorities forthwith, including by electronic mode. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 74