- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21061 WP No. 37074 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 37074 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: GOWRAMMA D/O SARSANAPPA AGE ABOUT 50 YEARS R/A MALOORU TALOOKU THORNA HALLI, KOLAR BYRANAHALLI, KARNATAKA - 563 130. …PETITIONER (BY MS. LIKITHA M, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAKSHITH R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE SECRETARY OF HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. CHIEF SUKPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CENTRAL PRISON PARAPANA AGRAHARA BANGALORE - 560 100, REPRESENTED BY AG. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.P. YOGANNA, AGA) Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21061 WP No. 37074 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. ISSUE A WRIT, DIRECTION OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO. CPB/CTP-SEC/14593/2025 DATED 27.10.2025 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT.NO.2 AT ANNEXURE A AND RELEASE PETITIONERS SON MAHESH (CONVICTED PRISONER NO.13409) ON PAROLE. 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 captioned petition is filed assailing the endorsement dated 27.10.2025 issued by the second respondent as per Annexure-A, declining to consider the petitioner's son's application seeking parole on the premises that the petitioner's application seeking bail is pending in Crl.A.No.332/2024. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA. Perused the records. 3. The petitioner, being the mother of the convict, has approached this Court assailing the endorsement/order passed - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21061 WP No. 37074 of 2025 by respondent No.2 rejecting the application for grant of parole. The records placed before this Court reveal that the petitioner’s son stands convicted in Special Case No.58/2021 for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, ‘POCSO Act’) and is presently undergoing sentence of life imprisonment, quantified as 20 years. It is not in dispute that the convict has already undergone incarceration for a period of 4 years and 6 months and has not availed the benefit of parole at any point of time since his incarceration. 4. The impugned rejection is premised solely on the ground that the convict has preferred an appeal against the judgment of conviction and that an application seeking suspension of sentence/bail is pending consideration before the Appellate Court. This Court, on a pointed consideration of the said ground, finds that the reason assigned by the respondent- authority is wholly untenable in law. The question as to whether pendency of an appeal or an application for suspension of sentence would operate as a bar for consideration of parole is no longer res integra. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21061 WP No. 37074 of 2025 5. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Ishwaramma vs. State of Karnataka in W.P.No.101311/2025 disposed of on 14.08.2025, has categorically held that mere pendency of an appeal or a bail application cannot be construed as a disqualification for grant of parole. It is observed therein that parole stands on a different footing and is a reformative measure intended to enable the convict to maintain social ties and reintegrate with society, and therefore, cannot be eclipsed by the pendency of appellate proceedings. The co-ordinate Bench has thus laid down that the authorities cannot deny parole on such a ground, thereby recognizing the independent statutory and administrative scheme governing parole. 6. In the light of the aforesaid binding precedent and the settled position of law, this Court is of the considered view that the rejection of the petitioner’s application by respondent No.2 suffers from patent illegality and non-application of mind. The authority has failed to consider the relevant factors such as the period of incarceration already undergone, the conduct of the convict, and the fact that the convict has not availed parole - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21061 WP No. 37074 of 2025 thus far. Instead, the rejection is founded on an extraneous and legally unsustainable ground. 7. Having regard to the totality of circumstances and the consistent judicial view governing the field, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case warranting interference and grant of parole. ORDER i. The writ petition is hereby allowed; ii. Respondent No.2 is directed to release the convict, namely Mahesh (CTP-13409), presently lodged in Parapana Agrahara Central Prison, on general parole for a period of ninety (90) days from the date of his release; iii. The release shall be subject to the convict strictly complying with all conditions of parole as may be imposed by the competent prison authorities; iv. During the period of parole, the convict shall maintain good conduct, shall not indulge in any criminal activity, and shall surrender before the jail authorities immediately upon expiry of the parole period; - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21061 WP No. 37074 of 2025 v. The release shall further be subject to the petitioner furnishing two sureties to the satisfaction of the concerned jail authorities; vi. The Registry is directed to forthwith communicate this order to the concerned prison authorities for immediate compliance. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8