Allowed

Renuka Bai v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Aug 2024WP/12457/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition prayed for parole of the petitioner's son, a life convict detained for over eleven years, to attend to the petitioner's terminal illness. The Court allowed the petition, directing the prison authorities to grant 60 days parole subject to standard conditions and weekly medical surveillance of the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.2 to release the detenue on parole for 60 days subject to conditions of no illegal activity and weekly police attendance by the petitioner's husband.

Renuka Bai Vs State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:32824 WP No. 12457 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 12457 OF 2024 (GM-POLICE)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

RENUKA BAI AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS W/O LATE SRINIVAS M/O BALAJIRAO @ TIBET (CT NO.5620) R/O 1060, GENERAL HOSPITAL ROAD VIDHYARANYAPURA MYSORE-570 008. (VIDHYARANYAPURAM P.S. LIMITS)

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SIRAJUDDIN AHMED, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA HOME DEPARTMENT, THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,

¶13

VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 01.

¶14

CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON VIJAYAPURA-586 101.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R2 THAT PETITIONERS SON BALAJIRAO @ TIBET (CTP NO. 5620) LODGED IN PRISON SINCE 12 YEARS IN R2 VIJAYPURA CENTRAL PRISON MAY BE ENLARGED / RELEASED OR GRANT GENERAL PAROLE FOR A PERIOD OF 90 DAYS TO MEET THE AILING MOTHER AS WELL TO MANAGE THE MEDICAL EXPENSES FOR

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:32824 WP No. 12457 of 2024

¶20

THE PETITIONERS MEDICAL TREATMENT AND TO HAVE LOVE AND CARE WITH HER.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents-State.

¶24

The petitioner's son Balajirao @ Tibet (CTP No.5620) is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 364(A), 342, 384, 323, 324, 504, 506 r/w 149 of IPC & 25 Arms Act, and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, and as of today, is in judicial custody for more than 11 years, 7 months and 24 days.

¶25

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking for a direction to the 2^nd respondent to release her son on parole, stating that her ill-health who is suffering from Terminal Illness, which is evident from the certificate issued by the Vidyaranya Hospital at Annexure-E. The petitioner's son on earlier occasion was released on Parole, and during the said period, a case was registered against the son of the petitioner in Crime No.60/2023 for similar offence including the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act.

¶26

The petitioner's son has been enlarged on bail in Crime No.60/2023 stating that he was implicated in the offence solely on the statement of the co-accused. There is no recovery of arm from the petitioner's son.

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:32824 WP No. 12457 of 2024

¶29

Therefore, the petitioner has established prima facie

¶30

case to release her son on parole. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

i) The petition is allowed.

¶33

ii) The respondent No.2 to release the detenue/ Balajirao @ Tibet (CTP No.5620) on parole for a period of 60 days from the date of release subject to condition that the petitioner's son shall not involve in any illegal activities during the period of parole.

¶34

iii) The respondent No.2 is at liberty to impose conditions as imposed normally at the time of grant of parole so as to ensure the return of the petitioner's son to the prison.

¶35

iv) The petitioner's husband to mark his attendance with the jurisdictional Police every one week.

¶36

v) The Registry to communicate this order to the Jail Authority through electronic mail. Any violation of the condition would result in cancellation of the parole.

¶37

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶38

Renuka Bai v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Renuka Bai 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Sugam Packaging Industries Vs M/S S N Enterprises

Ashwathamma Vs Gowramma

Hanumanthappa Vs Sri. Vinay Krishna. H. v.

Alrm Nagappan Vs the Government of Karnataka

Smt. Shashikala N Vs Icici Bank Ltd.

M.Isthiyak Ahmed Vs State of Karnataka