Allowed

Manjula v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Sept 2024WP/22686/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka granted general parole for 90 days to a life convict son of the petitioner, citing her severe medical incapacity and the son's clean parole record under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.2 directed to release petitioner's son on parole for 90 days with conditions including weekly police attendance and prohibition of unlawful activities.

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

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:38919 WP No. 22686 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 22686 OF 2024 (GM-POLICE)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MANJULA W/O KUMARA G MOTHER OF NAGENDRA K @ NAGESHA CTP - 4279 AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT TURUVEKERE MANICHENDUR POST, HITTALAKOPPA TUMKURU KARNATAKA - 572221.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SIRAJUDDIN AHMED., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

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

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA HOME DEPARTMENT THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560001.

¶13

CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON BELAGAVI - 591108.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 THAT PETITIONERS SON NAGENDRA K AT NAGESHA CTP-4279 LODGED IN PRISON SINCE 8 YEARS TILL NOW IN R-2 OF BELAGAVI CENTRAL PRISON MAY BE ENLARGED/RELEASED OR GRANT GENERAL PAROLE FOR A PERIOD OF 90 DAYS TO MEET HIS AILING MOTHER.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:38919 WP No. 22686 of 2024

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

The petitioner's son (CTP No.4279), who has been convicted in SC No.10003/2017 by the learned V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Tiptur, by judgment dated 5.11.2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 394, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC, and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, is before this Court.

¶23

The petitioner is seeking a directive to the respondents-police to release her son on parole citing that she is diagnosed with left shoulder rotator cuff irreparable tear, complete tear of supraspinatus tendon, tendinosis of subscapular tendon, degereative changes involving acromioclavicular joint, C6 C7 disc bulge, C3-4 C4-5 C5-6 diffudse disc bulge, anterior subarachnoid space narrowing of left neural foramina, spinal canal stenosis, lordosis of cervical spine, hypertensive crises withihd with spleenomergaly with severe anemia with old ischaemic heart disease associated cardiomyopathy, which is evident from Annexure-A. She is aged 53 years, and requires support of her son for a limited period of taking treatment.

¶24

The petitioner's son has been in custody for more than eight years, and on previous occasion, he was granted parole, and he has no record of violating the conditions of parole. Therefore,

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:38919 WP No. 22686 of 2024

¶27

petitioner has established a prima facie case to release the petitioner on parole. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶28

ORDER

¶29

i) The petition is allowed.

¶30

ii) The respondent No.2 is directed to release the petitioner's son (CTP No.4279) on parole for a period of ninety days from the date of release subject to the condition that the convict shall not involve in any unlawful activities during the period of parole.

¶31

iv) The respondents are at liberty to impose conditions as are usually stipulated to ensure the return of the convict to the prison, and that he shall not commit any other offence during the period of parole.

¶32

v) The parole granted stands automatically cancelled if the petitioner violates of any of the stipulated conditions.

¶33

vi) The convict to mark his attendance with the jurisdictional police on the first day of every week.

¶34

vii) The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Jail Authority through electronic mail.

¶35

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶36

BKM

Manjula v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjula 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 Naveena Granites Vs M/S Mysore Minerals Limited

Axis Bank Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka by

Venugopala G S Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Gsk Projects and Engineering (P) Ltd. Vs Canara Bank

Muniyabhovi Vs the Chief Superintendent

Sri Ravi Vs the State of Karnataka