- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21503 WP No. 10548 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 10548 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: SMT. S.N. VARALAKSHMI W/O. MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS HULKURU VILLAGE, ARALERI POST, MALUR, KOLAR - 562 102. WIFE OF MR.MUNIRAJU …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 CENTRAL PRISON, PARAPPANAGHRAHARA, BANGALORE - 580 100. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE 45MC + HMR, KOLAR, TAMAKA, KARNATAKA- 563 103. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.P. YOGANNA, AGA) Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21503 WP No. 10548 of 2026 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT AS ANNEXURE-B NO BCP/CTP-SEC/ 2025 ISSUED UNDATED ENDORSEMENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2/CENTRAL PRISON, BANGALORE, TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER S HUSBAND ON PAROLE FOR A PERIOD OF 90 DAYS IN PRISONER CTP NO. 12632 CONVICTED BY THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DTD 5.02.2022 PASSED BY THE HONBLE ADDL DIST AND SESSION JUDGE KOLAR IN SC NO. 179/2019 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 457, 354 A1(I) 302, 506, 201 OF IPC ACT ANX-A. 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 The petitioner is aggrieved by the endorsement issued by respondent no.2, declining to grant general parole to the petitioner's husband without assigning any reasons for the same. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned AGA appearing for the State. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21503 WP No. 10548 of 2026 3. The petitioner's husband is convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 457, 354-A(1)(i), 302, 506, 201 of the IPC in S.C.No.179/2019. The records revealed that the convict has undergone incarceration for close to seven years and has not availed any parole till this date. On examination of the records, since no untoward incidents are indicated by the jail authorities and the fact that the petitioner's husband (convict) has not availed parole for close to seven years, this Court is of the view that the endorsement issued by the second respondent is unsustainable. 4. The doctrine governing parole has been consistently evolved by constitutional courts to balance two competing interests on the one hand, the societal interest in ensuring safety and order, and on the other, the convict’s right to dignity and reformation under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Parole, thus, serves as a controlled and conditional liberty, which does not interrupt the sentence but merely suspends its execution temporarily. 5. In the case on hand, the prison records placed before the Court unmistakably reveal that the conduct of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21503 WP No. 10548 of 2026 detenue during the period of incarceration has been satisfactory and free from any adverse remarks. No untoward incident is reported against him. Significantly, the detenue is seeking parole for the first time in nearly seven years of incarceration, which itself is a relevant consideration while evaluating the request. 6. The adverse report submitted by the Superintendent of Police is founded only on a general apprehension that the detenue may pose a threat to the victim. Such an apprehension, in the considered view of this Court, is speculative and not supported by any concrete material. It is trite that mere apprehension of the police authorities, without substantive backing, cannot be a ground to deny parole, particularly when the detenue’s conduct in prison is satisfactory. 7. This Court is of the view that appropriate conditions can always be imposed to mitigate any perceived risk, including restricting the movement of the detenue, directing him to report to the jurisdictional police at regular intervals, and prohibiting any contact with the victim or his family. When such - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21503 WP No. 10548 of 2026 safeguards are available, outright denial of parole would be disproportionate and contrary to the principles governing grant of parole. 8. It is also to be emphasized that parole being a reformative measure, denial thereof in the absence of compelling reasons would defeat the very purpose of correctional jurisprudence. The continued incarceration of a prisoner without affording him even a temporary release, despite good conduct, would run counter to the constitutional mandate of fair, just and reasonable procedure. 9. In the totality of the circumstances, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of parole and that the apprehensions expressed in the adverse report can be adequately addressed by imposing stringent conditions. 10. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed; - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21503 WP No. 10548 of 2026 (ii) The endorsement issued by respondent no.2 is set aside; (iii) The respondents are directed to release the convict Muniraju., bearing CTP No.12632, on general parole for a period of 60 (sixty) days from the date of his release; (iv) The release shall be subject to the detenue furnishing an undertaking that he shall not indulge in any unlawful activities during the period of parole and shall maintain good conduct; (v) The respondents shall impose stringent conditions, including but not limited to: requiring the detenue to report before the jurisdictional police at periodic intervals, restricting his movement, and ensuring that he does not, directly or indirectly, make any contact with the victim or his family members; (vi) The detenue shall surrender before the jurisdictional prison authorities immediately upon expiry of the parole period, failing which appropriate action shall be taken in accordance with law; (vii) Any violation of the conditions imposed shall entail immediate cancellation of parole; (viii) Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to seek extension of parole, if permissible in law; - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21503 WP No. 10548 of 2026 (ix) The Registry is directed to communicate this order forthwith to the concerned prison authorities, including by electronic mode, for immediate compliance. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39