- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19128 WP No. 36234 of 2025 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.36234 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: 1. SMT.MANJULA W/O CHANDRASHEKAR M AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT NO.1224, AMBEDKAR STREET UMMATHUR CHAMRAJANAGAR -571316 THE PETITIONER IS THE WIFE OF THE CONVICT PRISONER CHANDRASHEKAR @ CHANDRA WHO IS SERVING SENTENCE IN MYSORE CENTRAL PRISON …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRADEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE PRISONS AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES SESHADRI ROAD BENGALURU - 560 003 2. THE CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON MYSORE - 570007 Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19128 WP No. 36234 of 2025 3. THE SPUERINTENDENT OF POLICE CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571313 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.P.YOGANNA, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO THE RESPONDENTS TO RELEASE THE CONVICT PRISONER NO.00450 CHANDRASHEKHAR @ CHANDRA S/O K.MAHADEVAIAH FOR 90 DAYS AND ETC. 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 This matter is de-linked from W.P.No.8295/2026. 2. The captioned writ petition is instituted by the wife of a convict prisoner, who is presently undergoing sentence at the Central Prison, Mysuru, upon conviction for offences punishable under Sections 4 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, “POCSO Act”), read with Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19128 WP No. 36234 of 2025 Act, and Sections 495 and 496 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant general parole to her husband. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. Perused the material on record. 4. The records reveal that the petitioner’s husband was convicted in Special Case No.80/2017 and is undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for a period of ten years. As per the custody certificate placed on record, the convict has undergone incarceration for a period of 7 years, 8 months and 3 days as on 21.11.2025. It is further forthcoming from the material on record that the convict has not availed parole even on a single occasion since the date of his incarceration. The application submitted by the convict seeking grant of general parole has been rejected by the prison authorities, primarily on - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19128 WP No. 36234 of 2025 the ground that the convict’s family consists predominantly of women members, including four sisters, and therefore, the request was not found suitable for consideration. 5. This Court, upon careful consideration of the material on record, finds that the convict has already undergone a substantial portion of the sentence imposed upon him, nearing eight years out of the total sentence of ten years. The imprisonment certificate further discloses that the conduct of the convict during incarceration has been satisfactory and no adverse remarks, indiscipline, or untoward incidents have been reported against him. The rejection of parole on the sole ground as indicated by the authorities does not appear to be sustainable in law, particularly in the absence of any material suggesting that release on parole would be detrimental to public order or safety. 6. It is trite that the concept of parole has been judicially recognized and evolved as an integral facet of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19128 WP No. 36234 of 2025 the reformative theory of punishment. Constitutional Courts have consistently emphasized that parole is intended to balance competing interests — the societal interest in maintaining law and order, and the fundamental right of the convict to dignity, reformation, and reintegration, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Parole, being a conditional and temporary release, does not interrupt or curtail the sentence, but merely suspends its execution for a limited duration subject to compliance with stipulated conditions. 7. Having regard to the fact that the convict has undergone a substantial portion of the sentence, coupled with his satisfactory conduct in prison and absence of any adverse material, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has made out a fit case for grant of general parole. 8. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19128 WP No. 36234 of 2025 ORDER (i) The writ petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The respondents are directed to release the convict, namely Chandrashekhar @ Chandra S/o K. Mahadevaiaha, bearing CTP No.00450, on general parole for a period of 90 (ninety) days from the date of his actual release. (iii) The release shall be subject to the detenue furnishing a written undertaking before the jurisdictional prison authorities that he shall maintain good conduct and shall not indulge in any unlawful or criminal activities during the period of parole. (iv) The respondents are at liberty to impose stringent and appropriate conditions to regulate the release, including but not limited to: (a) requiring the detenue to mark his attendance before the jurisdictional police at such intervals as may be specified; - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19128 WP No. 36234 of 2025 (b) restricting his movement to a particular jurisdiction; (c) ensuring that the detenue shall not, directly or indirectly, establish any form of contact or communication with the victim or the victim’s family members; and (d) any other condition deemed necessary in the interest of justice and public safety. (v) The detenue shall surrender before the jurisdictional prison authorities immediately upon expiry of the parole period, without fail. In the event of failure to surrender, the authorities shall be at liberty to initiate appropriate action in accordance with law. (vi) Any violation of the conditions imposed herein or by the competent authority shall entail immediate cancellation of parole, apart from such other legal consequences as may follow. (vii) Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to seek extension of parole, if permissible - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19128 WP No. 36234 of 2025 under law and subject to satisfaction of the competent authority. (viii) The Registry is directed to communicate this order forthwith to the concerned prison authorities, including through electronic mode, to ensure prompt compliance. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41