Disposed

Fathima v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Mar 2024WP/1416/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sister of a life convict under Section 302 IPC sought his premature release and parole. The State stated the release committee had recommended premature release and the matter was before the government. Court directed the authority to consider and pass orders in accordance with law; later clarified that a parole representation must also be considered.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the competent authority to consider the representation for premature release/parole and pass necessary orders in accordance with law.

Fathima Vs State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:10971 WP No. 1416 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 1416 OF 2024 (GM-POLICE)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

FATHIMA W/O ZAMEER AHMED SISTER OF SIKANDAR (CTP NO.2757) AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/O 00, 3^RD CROSS MARALUR DINNE JANATHA COLONY TUMKURU MARALUR KARNATAKA – 572 105.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SIRAJUDDIN AHMED, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶12

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

HOME DEPARTMENT THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶14

CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON BELAGAVI – 591 107.

¶15

THE LIFE CONVICTS RELEASE COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶16

HOME DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:10971 WP No. 1416 of 2024

¶19

BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶20

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE PRISONS AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES SESHADRI ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. K.P.YOGANNA, AGA.)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R2 AND 3 THAT PETITIONERS BROTHER SIKANDAR CTP NO.2757 MAY BE ENLARGED/ RELEASED PREMATURELY BASED ON THE PERIOD HE HAS UNDERGONE AND HIS CONDUCT IN JAIL AS WELL THE PRESENT HEALTH STATUS OF PETITIONER.

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer:

¶27

“a. Direct the Respondent 2 and 3 that Petitioner’s Brother Sikandar CTP No.2757 may be enlarged / Released prematurely based on the period he has undergone and his conduct in jail as wel the present health status of petitioner.

¶28

b. Pass any other order(s) which this court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.”

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:10971 WP No. 1416 of 2024

¶31

Heard Sri Sirajjuddin Ahmed, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri K.P.Yoganna, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents - State.

¶32

The petitioner is the sister of one Sikandar, who is the one, convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. Learned High Court Government Pleader on instructions and verification of the records would submit that the case of the petitioner is placed before the Committee considering the cases for premature release of the convicts, the Committee has considered, it is also recommended the brother of the petitioner for premature release and the matter is before the government.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that till the government takes a decision in the matter, the petitioner is entitled to release on grant of parole.

¶34

Learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that no representation is even made to the Authorities and the subject petition is preferred before this Court.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:10971 WP No. 1416 of 2024

¶37

In the light of the said submission, the Authority shall

¶38

without any loss of time, consider the same and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. It shall be borne in mind that

¶39

the brother of the petitioner has been recommended for premature release and the matter is before the government.

¶40

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition

¶41

stands disposed.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29 CT:SS

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:10971 WP No. 1416 of 2024

¶46

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶47

[FATHIMA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS]

¶48

MNPJ

¶49

21.06.2024

¶50

(VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING)

¶51

ORDER ON ‘BEING SPOKEN TO’

¶52

The subject petition was disposed on 18.03.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner has moved the matter for ‘being spoken to’, on the score that no order is passed for release of the petitioner on parole.

¶53

Learned High Court Government Pleader then had submitted that no representation is submitted seeking parole.

¶54

In the light of the said circumstance, this Court had disposed the petition directing the respondents to consider the representation but while passing the order, the direction to consider the representation was not explicitly said.

¶55

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to that circumstance, the petitioner’s representation seeking parole was not even considered.

¶56

Therefore, I direct the petitioner to submit a representation within one week from today and if an application is submitted, the concerned authority shall consider and pass necessary orders granting the petitioner parole or otherwise, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the

¶57

¶58

NC: 2024:KHC:10971 WP No. 1416 of 2024

¶59

order and not driving the petitioner to knock at the doors of this Court again.

¶60

The aforesaid order on ‘being spoken to’ shall be treated as part and parcel of the order dated 18.03.2024 .

¶61

Sd/JUDGE

¶62

NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 93

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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr K N Venkatesh Vs M Mallanna

K v Srinivas Vs Idbi Bank Ltd.

Naseem Unnisa Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Sanjib K R Deroi Vs the State of Karnataka

Fort City Recreation Club Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Sadashiva Acharya Vs the State of Karnataka