Partly allowed

Naseem Unnisa v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Mar 2024WP/2636/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A mother sought 90 days' general parole for her son, convicted under Sections 302, 120B, 506 r/w 149 IPC and in prison nine years, citing her illness. Finding his conduct satisfactory, the court granted parole for 30 days with attendance and return conditions.

What did the court decide?

General parole for convict CTP No.3391 for 30 days (18.03.2024 to 16.04.2024) with weekly reporting and strict conditions; extension possible based on conduct.

Naseem Unnisa Vs State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:10564 WP No. 2636 of 2024

¶3

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

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 2636 OF 2024 (GM-POLICE)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

NASEEM UNNISA W/O ABDUL AZEEZ M/O ABDUL WAHID (CTP NO.3391) AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O NO. 23^RD WARD NEAR TIPPU NAGAR, RAMANAGARA KARNATAKA – 562 158.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI SIRAJUDDIN AHMED, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶13

CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON, BELAGAVI – 581 108.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI C.S.PRADEEP, AAG A/W SRI K.P.YOGANNA, AGA)

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:10564 WP No. 2636 of 2024

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R1 AND 2 TO RELEASE THE PETITIONERS SON ABDUL WAHID (CTP NO.3391) MAY BE ENLARGED/RELEASED ON PAROLE FOR A PERIOD OF 90 DAYS TO MEET THE BASIC NECESSITIES AND CONJUGAL OBLIGATIONS WITH THE WIFE OF PRISONER AS WELL FOR THE MEDICAL TREATMENT OF THE PETITIONER MOTHER OF THE PRISONER.

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner is before this Court seeking release of her son on general parole for a period of 90 days.

¶21

Heard Sri. Sirajuddin Ahmed, learned counsel

¶22

appearing for the petitioner, Sri. C.S. Pradeep, learned Additional Advocate General along with Sri.K.P.Yoganna, Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and have perused the material on record.

¶23

The son of the petitioner gets embroiled in a crime

¶24

which leads to his conviction in S.C.No.35 of 2015 for offence punishable under Sections 302, 120B, 506 r/w 149 of the IPC.

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:10564 WP No. 2636 of 2024

¶26

4. As per the custody certificate, the convict is in

¶27

prison for the last 9 years. The petitioner is now seeking release of the convict for a period of 90 days on general parole on the ground of illness of the petitioner.

¶28

Since the conduct of the convict is found to be satisfactory, as nothing adverse is recorded against him and in view of the situation of his ailing mother/petitioner herein, I deem it appropriate to grant the convict a general parole for a period of 30 days to be commencing from 18.03.2024, with certain conditions.

¶29

6. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶30

ORDER

¶31

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

¶32

(ii) Mandamus issues to the respondent No.2 to consider the representation of the petitioner for release of the convict (CTP No.3391) on general parole for a period of 30 days, commencing from the forenoon of 18.03.2024, till the evening of 16.04.2024.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:10564 WP No. 2636 of 2024

¶35

(iii) The convict (CTP No.3391) shall mark his attendance before the jurisdictional police station, weekly once, throughout the period of his general parole and it would be the responsibility of the jurisdictional police to take him back to gaol, in the event, the convict (CTP No. 3391) would evade going back to the gaol, after the expiry of the period of parole.

¶36

(iv) Respondent No.2 shall stipulate strict conditions as are usually stipulated, to ensure return of the convict to the gaol and that he shall not commit any other offence during the period of parole.

¶37

(v) The convict is at liberty to seek extension of parole, which shall be considered looking at the conduct of the convict while he is out on parole.

¶38

(vi) Registry is directed to communicate this order to respondent No.2, by way of electronic mail, forthwith.

¶39

BKP/List No.: 1

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

Naseem Unnisa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naseem Unnisa 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

Jashed Pasha Vs Karnataka State Board of Wakf

Shri K Narasimha Bahat Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Anupama B S Vs Union of India

Dr K N Venkatesh Vs M Mallanna

K v Srinivas Vs Idbi Bank Ltd.

Sri. Sathish K N Vs the Karnataka State Small Industries Development