Allowed

Fathima v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Nov 2022WP/16273/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition seeking parole for a detenue convicted under IPC Sections 302 and 201. The court quashed the rejection order, citing humanistic principles and household considerations, and directed release for seven days with strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the order dated 08.09.2020 rejecting parole; directed respondents to release the detenue on parole from 28.11.2022 to 07.12.2022 subject to strict conditions for return to jail.

Fathima Vs State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 16273 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 16273 OF 2022 (GM-POLICE)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

FATHIMA, W/O LATE PYAREJAN, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT 44, 7^th CROSS, S.R. NAGAR ADUGODI,

¶9

BENGALURU – 560 030.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. ARVIND N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.MOHAN KUMAR D., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA,

¶14

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

BY THE SECRETARY OF HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶16

CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CENTRAL PRISON, PARAPANA AGRAHARA, ELECTRONIC CITY POST, BENGALURU - 560 100.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI.M.VINOD KUMAR, AGA)

¶19

¶20

WP No. 16273 of 2022

¶21

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT SEEKING TO QUASH THE REJECTED PAROLE ENDORSEMENT NO.BCP/13/03/2020-21 DATED 8.9.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE - C PASSED BY R-2 AND TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION BY RELEASING THE DETENUE ON PAROLE FOR A PERIOD OF 90 DAYS AND ETC.,

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the order dated 08.09.2020, by which, the respondents- Authority turns down the application submitted by her for release of her son on parole.

¶25

Heard Sri Arvind N., on behalf of Sri Mohan Kumar D., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri M.Vinod Kumar, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶26

3. Sans details, facts in brief are as follows;

¶27

The petitioner is the mother of the detenue who gets convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC and the same was confirmed by this

¶28

¶29

WP No. 16273 of 2022

¶30

Court. The detenue is in judicial custody for the past six years.

¶31

The detenue had submitted an application before respondent No.2 seeking emergency parole for a period of 15 days on the ground that her mother is suffering from serious health issues. The said application was rejected on the basis of the police verification report submitted by the Adugodi police station, wherein it is cited that the prisoner surety address does not match and the prisoner may create law and order issue in the locality. The order of rejection reads as follows;

¶32

“ENDORSEMENT

¶33

Sub:- Regarding Emergency Parole of Convict Prisoner No.11646 Shri.Saadiq Ahmed S/o. Pyaare Jaan- reg

¶34

Ref:- 1. Your Emergency Parole application dated: 18.08.2020.

¶35

2. Adugodi PS, Bangalore No.180/20, dated: 27.08.2020

¶36

With reference to the above subject, your application regarding sanction of Emergency parole citing your mother’s illness at ref (1) was sent for Police verfication on 21.08.2020. The same has been rejected by Adugodi PS, Bangalore at ref(2) citing that prisoner surety address does not match and prisoner may create law and order issue in the locality. Hence, your application for Emergecy Parole is rejected hereby.”

¶37

¶38

WP No. 16273 of 2022

¶39

In the light of the submission of the mother of the

¶40

convict that she has serious health issues and wants to look at her son, I deem it appropriate to allow the petition by directing release of the convict on parole for a period of seven days.

¶41

In identical circumstances this Court has, in Writ

¶42

Petition No.18978/2021 disposed on 26.10.2021 held as follows:

¶43

“3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant a restrictive & conditional indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:

¶44

a) Petitioner in all fairness has disclosed all the material particulars of the cases in which her husband has been convicted & sentenced; presently he has been serving sentence in the gaol for purging the guilt since last more than two decades ie., since 02.03.1999, of course with some parole/furlough; he had violated some parole condition earlier, may be true; however, one cannot forget that every saint had a past and every sinner has a future; the fact that a person is convicted and put behind the bars, does not render him a destitute of all liberty & dignity; in matters like this humanistic approach needs to be adopted qua the convicts; a convict has to keep in contact with the civil society although sporadically, so that his societal roots, do not dry up when he languishes in the jail; otherwise, when he returns from the prison after completing the term of sentence, he may be a total stranger and life may prove hard to him; this is not a happy thing to happen in a Welfare State.

¶45

(b) The provisions of parole/furlough are structured on humanistic grounds for the reprieve of those lodged in gaols for long; the main purpose of releasing a serving convict on parole is to afford to him

¶46

¶47

WP No. 16273 of 2022

¶48

an opportunity to solve his personal & family problems and to enable him to maintain his links with the civil society; there may be cases of health grounds too; the marriage of convict’s younger daughter Chi.S.Monish is scheduled to be performed on 7^th & 8^th day of November, 2021 at Bastipura, Kollegal; petitioner has produced the Marriage Invitation Card at Annexure-L; ordinarily every Hindu Marriage involves certain rituals such as ‘Vivaah Homa’ & ‘Kanyadaan’ that are done with the participation of the parents; even otherwise, when a young daughter is getting married, the presence of her father, is desirable, consistent with the humanitarian considerations which inhere in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶49

(c) It was Oscar Wilde in a stanza of his poem “The Ballard of Reading Gaol” who lamented about the prison life as under:

¶50

“ This too I know …. And wise it were

¶51

If each could know the same …

¶52

That every prison that men build

¶53

Is built with bricks of shame,

¶54

And bound with bars lest Christ should see How men their brothers maim”.

¶55

“Compassion wherever possible and cruelty only where inevitable, is the art of correctional confinement”, said the Apex Court in CHARLES SOBRAJ VS THE SUPTD., CENTRAL JAIL, TIHAR, 1978 AIR 1514; after all, the standard of civilization is measured by looking to how the State and Civil Society treat the criminals. The sublime feelings of the spouse & children permeate the prison walls and reach out to the convict, however strong & unkindly they are built; therefore, this court has to facilitate the presence & participation of the petitioner in the ensuing marriage ceremony; an otherwise stand of the court, runs the risk of being branded as ‘inhuman’ by the right thinking sections of the society, to say the least.

¶56

(d) The vehement contention of learned State Counsel that the petitioner’s husband has some blameworthy track record and he may flee away from the clutches of law, do not much impress this court; it is not that, the convict is awarded a capital punishment and therefore he may take a chance to run away from the

¶57

¶58

WP No. 16273 of 2022

¶59

gallows; What George A. Ellis in his book “Inside Folsom Prison” said about the nature of convicts is quoted by the Apex Court in MARU RAM vs. UNION OF INDIA, (1981) 1 SCR 1196 very pertinently:

¶60

“Contrary to popular opinion, all convicts are not rock-hard individuals lacking sufficient emotional balance. They are people, with fears and aspirations like everyone else. Generally, they don’t want to fight with or kill their neighbor any more than the man on the street. They want to live in peace and return to it their loved ones as soon as possible. They are not a different breed of human being or a distinct type of mentality. They are persons who have made mistakes. This point is made not to solicit pity but to bring attention to the fact that any individual could be caught in a similar web and find himself inside a pit such as Folsom Prison”.

¶61

Suitable & stringent conditions can be stipulated by the prison authorities themselves; that would assuage this apprehension.

¶62

In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds in part; the respondents are directed to consider the subject representation and release the convict on parole/furlough from the forenoon of 01.11.2021 till the afternoon of 15.11.2021; the respondents shall stipulate strict conditions as are usually stipulated to ensure the return of convict to the gaol and that he shall not commit any other offence.”

¶63

In the light of the facts obtaining in the case at hand and

¶64

the judgment rendered by the co-ordinate Bench, I deem it appropriate to follow the same and permit the detenue to be released on parole. Therefore, the following:

¶65

¶66

WP No. 16273 of 2022

¶67

ORDER

¶68

(i) Writ Petition is allowed in part.

¶69

(ii) Order dated 08.09.2020 passed by 2^nd respondent rejecting the application for parole stands quashed.

¶70

(iii) The respondents are directed to consider the representation of the detenue and release him on parole from the forenoon of 28.11.2022 till the afternoon of 07.12.2022.

¶71

(iv) The respondents shall stipulate strict conditions as are usually stipulated, to ensure return of the detenue to the gaol and that he shall not commit any other offence.

¶72

Sd/JUDGE

¶73

¶74

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

Fathima v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fathima v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr H K Srinath Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Sri. Nanda Kumar. K Vs Deputy Registrar of Chits

Sri a Tangaraj Vs Sri Gopal

Smt Sheela Ramesh Vs Smt Manjula Murthy

The Registrar Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Bharath Raj Vs M/S National Textile Corporation