Partly allowed

Iranagouda Puttappa Puttappanavar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Jun 2024WP/2452/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Life convict in Central Prison Dharwad, through his ailing mother, sought release on general parole for 15 days under the Prison Manual. Court granted general parole from 06.06.2024 to 20.06.2024 with conditions including weekly police station attendance and strict stipulations for return to gaol.

What did the court decide?

General parole granted for 15 days from 06.06.2024 to 20.06.2024 with weekly police attendance and strict return conditions.

Iranagouda Puttappa Puttappanavar Vs State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:19221 WP No. 2452 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 2452 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

IRANAGOUDA PUTTAPPA PUTTAPPANAVAR S/O PUTTAPA PUTTAPPANAVAR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS OCC: PRISON R/O CTP NO 4681, CENTRAL JAIL, DHARWAD - 580 008 AS PETITIONER IS IN CUSTODY REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER SMT. SHANKRAVVA PUTTAPANAVAR AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT YALAVADAL, TAVARAGERI, KALGHATAGI TALUK, DHARWAD DISTRICT - 581 204

¶8

Digitally signed by VANDANA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

(BY SRI. GIRISH M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS, BENGALURU - 560001

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME,

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:19221 WP No. 2452 of 2024

¶16

PRISON AND CINEMA, BENGALURU - 560 001

¶17

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL POLICE AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS SHESHADRI ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001

¶18

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DHARWAD DISTRICT - 580 008

¶19

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL PRISON DHARWAD DISTRICT - 580 008

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. S.T. NAIK, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER AS PER ANNEXURE-E, QUASH THE MEMORANDUM/LETTER DATED 16.12.2023 BEARING NO. 720/DCRB/4/PAROLE/4305/2023 AS ISSUED BY THE R-4 AND DIRECT TO R-5 TO CONSIDER THE REQUEST MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO EXTEND REMISSION AND RELEASE HIM FROM CENTRAL PRISON ON EMERGENCY PAROLE FOR 15 DAYS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to respondent No.4 to consider her request for grant of release of her son on general

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:19221 WP No. 2452 of 2024

¶27

parole for a period of 15 days, who is a life convict – CTP No.4681 in terms of the Prison Manual.

¶28

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents.

¶29

The brief facts are as follows:

¶30

The petitioner’s son commits a crime which ends up in his conviction in S.C.No.135/2017. On the registration of a crime for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 504, 506 R/w Section 34 of IPC, the petitioner’s son was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

¶31

The petitioner’s son continues to be in prison and is now in prison for the last 7 years. On all the aforesaid basis, the petitioner seeks parole on the ground that her son has been a life convict for over 7 years and 3 months. The petitioner pleads that she is suffering from several ailments and desires that her son be with her.

¶32

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:19221 WP No. 2452 of 2024

¶34

6. The aforementioned facts are not in dispute and

¶35

therefore, requires no reiteration. The petitioner now seeks parole only on the ground that she is suffering from ailment and wants her son to be in the family. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to grant the petitioner’s son general parole for a period of 15 days, which becomes operational from 06.06.2024 to 20.06.2024.

¶36

In view of the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

(i) The Writ Petition is allowed-in-part.

¶39

(ii) Petitioner’s son – detenue (Iranagouda Puttappa Putappanavar) (CTP No. 4681) is granted general parole for a period of 15 days, which becomes operational from 06.06.2024 to 20.06.2024.

¶40

(iii) The convict (CTP No.4681) shall mark his attendance in the jurisdictional police station weekly once throughout the period of his parole and it would be the responsibility of the jurisdictional police to take him to gaol, in the event, the convict (CTP No.4681) would evade going back to the gaol, after the expiry of the period of general parole.

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:19221 WP No. 2452 of 2024

¶43

(iv) Respondent No.5 shall stipulate strict conditions

¶44

as are usually stipulated, to ensure return of the detenue to the gaol and that the convict shall not commit any other

¶45

offence during the period of parole.

¶46

(v) Registry is directed to communicate this order to respondent No.5, by way of electronic mail, forthwith.

¶47

(vi) The petitioner’s son is at liberty to seek extension of general parole, which shall be considered looking at the conduct of the convict, while he is out on parole.

¶48

Sd/- JUDGE

¶49

RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 90

Iranagouda Puttappa Puttappanavar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Iranagouda Puttappa Puttappanavar 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 Snnap Design Tech LLP. Vs Union of India

Mr a N Thammannegowda Vs the Inspector General of Registration

Smt Vijayalakshmi Vs the State of Karnataka

Basavaraj Shivappa Yalival Vs State of Karnataka

Mrs Bhavani Vs Bhatat Co. Operative Bank (Mumbai) Ltd.

Sri Gururaj Bhimsen Kulkarni Vs Canara Bank