- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17757 WP No. 37790 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 37790 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: SHIRAMA @ SHIVARAMA, CTP: 19822 S/O DHARMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT AYANOOR KOTE VILLAGE, SHIVAMOGGA, KARNATAKA - 577 201 &PETITIONER (BY SRI. SIRAJUDDIN AHMED, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA HOME DEPARTMENT, THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17757 WP No. 37790 of 2025 2. CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON, KALBURGI - 585 201. 3. SHO KOTE P.S SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201. (JURISDICTIONAL POLICE STATION) &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.P. YOGANNA, AGA) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE PRAYING TO QUASH / SET ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENT PRODUCED AT ANNX-C DATED 06/11/25. DIRECT THE R-2 TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER SHIRAMA ALIAS SHIVARAMA CTP 19822 ON GENERAL PAROLE FOR A PERIOD OF 90 DAYS IN ORDER TO COME OUT FROM EVIL STRESS OF LONG INCARCERATION. 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:17757 WP No. 37790 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioner is aggrieved by the non consideration of his application seeking general parole for a period of 30 days, which was rejected on the ground of an adverse report submitted by the concerned police official. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned AGA appearing for the respondents-State. Perused the material placed on record. 3. The petitioner is presently lodged in Kalburgi Central Prison and is undergoing imprisonment for life pursuant to his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The records indicate that the petitioner was in judicial custody from 27.04.2013 to 17.12.2015 and has been continuously undergoing sentence from 30.01.2016. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that, for nearly thirteen years, the petitioner has not been enlarged on parole even once. This factual assertion is not seriously disputed by the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17757 WP No. 37790 of 2025 learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State. 4. It is further submitted that the rejection of the petitioner9s request for parole is wholly arbitrary and unsupported by cogent reasons. A perusal of the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, produced at Annexure3C, reveals that the rejection is not founded on any independent assessment or objective material. The endorsement merely reproduces the objections of the jurisdictional police without disclosing any specific apprehension, antecedent conduct, or material indicating that the petitioner9s release on parole would be detrimental to public peace or safety. 5. This Court has, on numerous occasions, reiterated the settled principles governing the grant of parole. Parole is not a matter of charity but a reformative measure rooted in the principles of penology. The object of parole is to afford an opportunity to the convict to maintain social - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17757 WP No. 37790 of 2025 ties, to mitigate the rigours of continuous incarceration, and to facilitate his gradual reintegration into society. The doctrine of parole is thus intrinsically linked to the constitutional mandate of humane treatment of prisoners and the reformative theory of punishment. 6. While considering a request for parole, the authorities are required to strike a balance between the interest of society and the rights of the convict. The consideration cannot be mechanical or based solely on the ipse dixit of the jurisdictional police. The competent authority is obligated to independently assess relevant factors such as the nature of the offence, the conduct of the prisoner during incarceration, the likelihood of misuse of liberty, and the existence of any genuine threat to public order. Mere apprehension, without substantiating material, cannot be a ground to deny parole. 7. In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has undergone incarceration for more than - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17757 WP No. 37790 of 2025 thirteen years. There is no material placed on record to indicate any adverse conduct on the part of the petitioner during his custody. The report of the police authorities does not disclose any specific or compelling reason warranting denial of parole. On the contrary, the long period of incarceration without availing parole, coupled with the absence of any untoward incident, would entitle the petitioner to a liberal and sympathetic consideration. 8. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and the well- established principles governing grant of parole, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned action of the authorities in denying parole is unsustainable. The petitioner has made out a fit case for being enlarged on parole, subject to appropriate safeguards. ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed; ii. Respondent No.2 is directed to release the convict, namely Shirama @ Shivarama (CTP- 19822), presently lodged in Kalburgi Central - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17757 WP No. 37790 of 2025 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 the conditions of parole as may be imposed by the competent prison authorities; iv. During the period of parole, the convict shall not involve himself in any criminal activity, shall maintain good conduct, and shall surrender before the jail authorities immediately upon expiry of the parole period; 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.: 41