- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22782 WP No. 11438 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 11438 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: 1. SRI PRABHU B K S/O KARIYANNA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, (CTP NO.12212) CURRENTLY SERVING HIS SENTENCE IN CENTRAL PRISON, BENGALURU …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ARVIND N, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT OF PRISON CENTRAL PRISON, PARAPPANA AGRAHARA, ELECTRONIC CITY POST, BENGALURU - 560 100. 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL PRISONS AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, KARNATAKA STATE ADDRESS NO.4, SHESHADRI ROAD, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 009. Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22782 WP No. 11438 of 2026 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ADDRESS: TUMAKURU DISTRICT, TUMAKURU - 572 137. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K P YOGANNA, AGA) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER SEEKING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 16.03.2026 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN LETTER NO. BCP/J3/1103/2026 VIDE ANNEXURE-D 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 Petitioner who is the convict and undergoing sentence at Central Prison, Bengaluru post conviction in Special Case No.328/2018, for the offences punishable under Sections 376(A)(B) and 506 of Indian Penal Code, is seeking directions at the hands of this Court to direct the respondent authorities to grant parole. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA. Perused the records. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22782 WP No. 11438 of 2026 3. Petitioner has undergone incarceration for a period of 7 years 7 months as on today. The authorities have rejected the application seeking parole on the ground that reasons assigned are not satisfactory. 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, prison records placed before this Court unmistakably reveal that conduct of present petitioner during the period of incarceration has been satisfactory and free from any adverse remarks. No untoward incident is reported against him. The petitioner - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22782 WP No. 11438 of 2026 while on parole on previous occasion has clearly abided the conditions imposed by the concerned authorities. Despite the reasons assigned by petitioner while seeking parole having been found unsatisfactory, this Court cannot stay oblivious to the principles governing grant of parole. The object of parole is to enable a convict to maintain social ties, to attend to pressing personal and family exigencies, and to facilitate reintegration into society. Therefore, it is in this backdrop, even if petitioner has not made out a case for grant of parole for want of renovation of his house, this Court cannot brush aside the principles governing the grant of parole which enables the convict and facilitates reintegration into society. 6. This Court is of the opinion that adequate safeguards can be put in place by directing the detenue to adhere to strict reporting requirements before the jurisdictional police at periodic intervals, by regulating his movement during the period of parole, and by imposing an unequivocal restraint prohibiting the detenue from - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22782 WP No. 11438 of 2026 establishing any form of contact, directly or indirectly, with the victim or the victim’s family members. Such conditions, in the considered view of this Court, would sufficiently mitigate the perceived risks while at the same time preserving the limited liberty sought by the petitioner. 7. In the totality of the circumstances, and having regard to the nature of the request, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case warranting grant of parole. The concerns articulated in the adverse report can be adequately addressed by subjecting the detenue to stringent conditions, which this Court deems fit to impose while granting such relief. 8. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Petition is allowed; - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22782 WP No. 11438 of 2026 (ii) The impugned endorsement dated 16.03.2026 issued by the respondent No.2 vide Annexure-D is quashed; (iii) The respondent No.2 is directed to release the petitioner on general parole for a period of ninety (90) days from the date of his release, subject to the petitioner furnishing two sureties to the satisfaction of the competent authority; (iv) During the period of parole, the petitioner shall maintain good conduct and shall not indulge in any criminal activity or involve himself in any offence, much less offences of a similar nature; (v) The petitioner shall scrupulously comply with all conditions that may be imposed by the jail authorities and shall keep them informed of his whereabouts, as and when required; (vi) The petitioner shall surrender before the jurisdictional prison authorities immediately upon expiry of the parole period, unless the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22782 WP No. 11438 of 2026 same is extended by a competent authority in accordance with law; (vii) The learned Additional Government Advocate shall forthwith communicate this order to the respondent No.2 – Chief Superintendent, Central Prison, Parappana Agrahara, Bengaluru, for immediate compliance; (viii) The Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the concerned prison authorities without delay to ensure prompt implementation. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 65