Dismissed

Kum. Channabasawwa Irappa Hongal v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Nov 2024WP/105032/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A life convict serving a sentence for offences under Sections 498A, 302 and 506 IPC sought quashing of an endorsement rejecting her parole request made to cultivate her aged mother's land. The court found no urgency requiring her personal presence and noted adverse police opinion about threat to complainants, dismissing the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Kum. Channabasawwa Irappa Hongal Vs the State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16455 WP No. 105032 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 105032 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

KUM. CHANABASAWWA IRAPPA HONGAL, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: PRISON, R/O. CTP NO.3465, CENTRAL PRISON, BELAGAVI.

¶6

SINCE PETITIONER IN JAIL CUSTODY, HENCE REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER GANGAWWA W/O. IRAPPA HONGAL, AGE: 73 YEARS, R/O. KASABA ONI, TADAKOD, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA A. PUROHIT, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, JUSTICE & HUMAN RIGHTS, BANGALORE-560001.

¶11

MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH

¶12

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY IT’S UNDER SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, PRISON & CRIME, BANGALORE-560001.

¶14

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL POLICE, & INSPECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS, SHESHADRI ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.

¶15

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DHARWAD-580001.

¶16

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL PRISON, HINDALAGA, BELAGAVI-591108.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP)

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16455 WP No. 105032 of 2024

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO

¶21

i. ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI SETTING ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 13-05-2024 BEARING NO. KEKABE/JC2/PAROLE/2024-25, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.5 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AS NULL AND VOID.

¶22

ii. TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.4 AND 5 TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON PAROLE FOR 30 DAYS PERIOD BY CONSIDERING HER CLAIM IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri

¶27

Raghavendra Purohit and learned HCGP for respondentsState.

¶28

2. Petitioner is before this Court seeking to quash the proceedings of respondent No.5- vide Annexure-C, who on the basis of report submitted by respondent No.4 has rejected the parole request. Petitioner has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302 and 506

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16455 WP No. 105032 of 2024

¶30

of IPC in Sessions Case No.204/2008 is undergoing imprisonment for life by the order dated 30.07.2014. Despite an appeal being preferred against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the same came to be dismissed confirming the Judgment of conviction rendered by the trial Court.

¶31

3. It is the case of petitioner that she is in judicial custody since the year 2008 for more than 16 years. Petitioner was once released on parole on 27.04.2023 by virtue of an order passed in Writ Petition No.102358/2023 by this Court. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner does not have any other criminal antecedents and she gave a representation to respondent No.5 five to release her on parole for the reason that she wants to cultivate her land. The said letter was forwarded to respondent No.4 for securing information and opinion with regard to releasing the petitioner on parole. Respondent No.4 has evaluated and provided a negative opinion for the request of release of parole of the petitioner on the ground that there is life threat to the relatives of victim by the

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16455 WP No. 105032 of 2024

¶33

petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that based on the opinion expressed by respondent No.4, respondent No.5 issued endorsement rejecting the application of the petitioner for release on parole, which is questioned here.

¶34

4. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that father of the petitioner died on 21.11.2023 and her mother is 75 years aged and due to her old age, she is unable to look after the agricultural land, which is lying barren and vacant. Hence, there is requirement of the petitioner to be released on parole for taking care of the land and to plough the land. Hence a requisition was made for release on parole which has been arbitrarily rejected without application of mind and the same requires to be set aside and consequently, the petitioner to be granted parole.

¶35

5. Per contra, the learned HCGP representing the State vehemently contends that the only reason sought for release on parole is on the ground that the land of petitioner's mother requires to be ploughed and cultivated. There is no

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16455 WP No. 105032 of 2024

¶37

inherent requirement of the petitioner for taking care of the land. It is contended that some other persons could be engaged and on the contrary, there are complaints and objections raised by the complainant-victims contending that there is an imminent threat to the complainants in case of release of parole of the petitioner and their life would be in danger. Considering these aspects of threat and complaints and objections raised and on the opinion of respondent No.4, respondent No.5 rejected the application, seeking parole which is correctly done it does not stem from any ill will or arbitrariness. Under the circumstances, learned HCGP seeks to dismiss the petition as being devoid of merits.

¶38

6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondents, it is to be seen while granting parole, what is the requirement and imminent urgency for grant of parole. The urgency shown is only with regard to cultivation of land and ploughing of land, which could be organized by the petitioner or the surviving members through another person other than the petitioner. The second important aspect is the opinion expressed by

¶39

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16455 WP No. 105032 of 2024

¶40

respondent No.4 on the basis of complaint received by the complainant and victims that there being an apparent imminent threat to their life and safety and security, if the petitioner is released on parole. This being the main reason, a negative opinion is given by respondent No.4 for release of parole, which is accepted by respondent No.5 and has rightly rejected the application for parole.

¶41

7. As stated earlier, parole can be granted to the petitioner to fulfill certain requirements, which could only be done by the petitioner and no one else and on the basis of her antecedents and on a clean chit or a report given by respondent No.4 on the basis of opinion, complaints from the complainants/victims. In the present case on hand, both the points for consideration being negative. The respondent No.5 has rightly rejected the application for parole. This Court does not find any urgency or immediate requirement or need for the petitioner to be released on parole. Under the circumstances, the reasons assigned by respondent No.5 do not call for any interference. This petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly, I pass the following :

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC-D:16455 WP No. 105032 of 2024

¶44

ORDER

¶45

This petition is dismissed.

¶46

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶47

CKK CT-MCK

¶48

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27

Kum. Channabasawwa Irappa Hongal v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Kum. Channabasawwa Irappa Hongal v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay W/O Yashwant Suntakar Vs the State of Karnataka

The Shivashakathi Recreation Club -R- Vs the State of Karnataka

Union Bank of India Vs State of Karnataka

Anil S/O Pandurang Kurne Vs the Managing Director

T S Gopikrishna S/O Ramachandra Achar Vs the Executive Officer

Sri Nagaraj Padiyannavar Urf Walikar, Vs the State of Karnataka