Allowed

Hathun Bi v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Aug 2024WP/3656/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court of Karnataka granted parole to a life convict for 45 days to aid his ill mother and fulfill marital obligations, allowing prison authorities to impose standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.2 directed to release the petitioner's son on parole for forty-five days subject to standard conditions.

Hathun Bi Vs State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:30949 WP No. 3656 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 3656 OF 2024 (GM-POLICE)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

HATHUN BI W/O SAYYED GOUS M/O SAYYED IMTIYAZ (CTP NO 3390) AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/O NO.23, 1^ST CROSS NEAR TIPPU MASJID RAMANAGARA, KARNATAKA-562 159.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SIRAJUDDIN AHMED, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. UMME SALMA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON, BELAGAVI-581 108.

¶15

(BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP)

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R2 TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER'S SON SAYYED IMTIYAZ (CTP NO. 3390) MAY BE ENLARGED/ RELEASED ON PAROLE FOR PERIOD OF 90 DAYS TO MEET THE BASIC NECESSITIES AND CONJUGAL OBLIGATIONS WITH THE WIFE OF PRISONER WHO IS AT BELAGAVI CENTRAL PRISON AS WELL FOR THE MEDICAL TREATMENT OF THE PETITIONER MOTHER OF THE PRISONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:30949 WP No. 3656 of 2024

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

The petitioner's son viz: Sayyed Imtiyaz (CTP No.3390) is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The petitioner asserts that her son is in judicial custody for more than ten years.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State.

¶24

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking for a direction to release her son on parole stating that she is suffering from diabetes, blood pressure and abdomen pain, and she needs support of her son for taking treatment. The medical certificate produced at Annexure-A indicates that the petitioner is suffering from diabetes, blood pressure and abdomen pain. She is aged about 57 years, and she requires support of her son for a limited period for taking treatment.

¶25

Given these circumstances, the petitioner has established a prima facie case for release of her son on parole. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

i) The petition is allowed.

¶28

ii) The respondent No.2 is directed to release the petitioner's son viz: Sayyed Imtiyaz (CTP No.3390) on parole for a

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:30949 WP No. 3656 of 2024

¶31

period of fortyfive days from the date of release subject to condition that the detenue shall not involve in any unlawful activities during the period of parole.

¶32

iii) The respondent No.2 is at liberty to impose conditions as are usually stipulated to ensure the return of the detenue to the jail, and he shall not commit any other offence during the period of parole.

¶33

iv) The Registry to communicate this order to the Jail Authority through electronic mail.

¶34

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶35

BKM

Hathun Bi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hathun Bi 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Girish S Palaskar Vs the State of Karnataka

Ramesha @ Ramu @ Kovi Ravi Vs State of Karnataka

Academy of Liberal Education (R) Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Connaissance Asset Shoppe India P Vs Sri v Kiran Kumar

Chimes Educational Trust Vs State of Karnataka

Keshava Murthy J Vs Reliance Commercial Finance Limited