Allowed

Nanjundaiah v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Sept 2024WP/22879/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On a writ petition seeking release on parole for a convict due to the ill-health of his father and the need to oversee agricultural activities, the High Court of Karnataka allowed the petition, quashed impugned police reports and ordered the respondents to release the petitioner on parole for ninety days subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Police report and endorsement quashed; Petitioner No.2 directed to be released on parole for ninety days subject to specified conditions.

Nanjundaiah Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:38389 WP No. 22879 of 2024

¶2

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

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 22879 OF 2024 (GM-POLICE)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

NANJUNDAIAH S/O LATE NANJAIAH AGED 62 YEARS, R/AT MADAVADI TALAKADU HOBLI T NARASIPURA TALUK MYSURU-571 122.

¶7

MAHESH N S/O NANJUNDIAH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT MADAVADI TALAKADU HOBLI T NARASIPURA TALUK MYSURU-571 122

¶8

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

NOW IN THE CENTRAL PRISON HAVING CTP NO.9905 PARAPPANA AGRAHARA BENGALURU-560 100.

¶10

(BY SRI. K. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPT. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPT. OF HOME VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001.

¶14

THE CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:38389 WP No. 22879 of 2024

¶17

PARAPPANA AGRAHARA BENGALURU-560100.

¶18

THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE KARNATAKA PRISON CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, SHESHADRI ROAD, GANDHINAGAR BENGALURU-560 009.

¶19

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE MYSURU DISTRICT MYSURU-570 019.

¶20

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE TALKADU POLICE STATION T NARASIPURA TALUK MYSURU-571 122.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK. HCGP)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE POLICE REPORT DATED 12.06.2024 ISSUED BY THE R-4 BEARING NO. DCRB/MY/PAROLE/AVADIPOORVA/13/2024 (PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-D) TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The petitioner No.2 (CTP No.9905), who has been convicted in Spl.C.C No.87/2013 by the Child Friendly Bengaluru Urban District by judgment dated 18.11.2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376, 302 and 201 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act, and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, is before this Court.

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:38389 WP No. 22879 of 2024

¶29

The petitioners are seeking a directive to the respondents-police to release the petitioner No.2 on parole citing ill-health of his father, who is suffering from hyponatremia, ischemic stroke with weakness of limbs, coronary artery disease, hypertension, diabetes, vascular parkinsonism, which is evident from medical certificate issued by the CEG Hospital, Mysuru, vide Annexure-H, and also to oversee the agricultural activities. To substantiate the same, the petitioners have annexed the copy of record of rights standing in the name of the petitioner No.1 - father.

¶30

The petitioner No.2 has been in custody for more than eleven years and three months. Therefore, petitioners have established a prima facie case to release the petitioner No.2 on parole. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

i) The petition is allowed.

¶33

ii) The police report dated 12.6.2024 issued by the respondent No.4 vide Annexure-D and the impugned endorsement dated 14.8.2024 issued by the respondent No.2 vide Annexure-E are hereby quashed.

¶34

iii) The respondents No.2 and 3 are directed to release the petitioner No.2 (CTP No.9905) 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.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:38389 WP No. 22879 of 2024

¶37

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.

¶38

v) The parole granted stands automatically cancelled if the petitioner No.2 violates of any of the stipulated conditions.

¶39

vi) The petitioner No.2 to mark his attendance with the jurisdictional police on the first day of every week.

¶40

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

¶41

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶42

BKM

Nanjundaiah v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nanjundaiah v. the 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

Miss. Karishma P Shah Vs M/S. Bindu Ventures

Sri M C Shankar Vs Smt Yallamma

Dr.Archana Singh Vs Idfc Mutual Fund

Sri N S Ravi Kumar Vs Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited

Sri Thulasi Prasad H T Vs the Joint Director

Diaspay Fintech Private Limited Vs the State of Maharastra