Partly allowed

Shakuntala Vitthal Kamkar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Apr 2024WP/58/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Where a life convict has served over 18 years with exemplary jail conduct and his sole surviving parent suffers from tuberculosis, the court may grant general parole even absent any prior parole application by the convict. Here the court granted 60 days' general parole (10.04.2024 to 08.06.2024), required weekly police-station attendance, directed strict usual conditions for return to gaol, permitted later extension based on conduct, and mandated consideration of the convict's representation for premature release. Writ petition partly allowed.

What did the court decide?

60-day general parole granted to the petitioner's son (CTP No.583), 10.04.2024–08.06.2024, with weekly reporting and usual conditions; representation to be considered.

Shakuntala Vitthal Kamkar Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:14492 WP No. 58 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 58 OF 2024 (GM-POLICE)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHAKUNTALA VITTHAL KAMKAR W/O VITTHAL KAMKAR M/O JYOTIBA(CTP NO.583) AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS PATIL GALLI, VADGAVI VTC-BELGUM M VADGAON SUB DIST-HUKKERI, DIST-BELAGAVI KARNATAKA-590005

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SIRAJUDDIN AHMED.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME

¶13

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI VIDHANA SOUDHA Location: HIGH BENGALURU-560001 COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON BELAGAVI-591108

¶15

THE LIFE CONVICTS RELEASE COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:14492 WP No. 58 of 2024

¶18

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE PRISONS AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES SESHADRI ROAD BENGALURU-560001

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.RAHUL CARIAPPA K.S., AGA)

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO -DIRECT THE PETITIONERS SON JYOTIBA (CTP NO. 583) MAY BE ENLARGED/ RELEASE PREMATURELY BASED ON THE PERIOD HE HAS UNDERGONE AND HIS CONDUCT IN JAIL AS WELL HIS PRESENT HEALTH STATUS OF PETITIONER AND HER OLD AGE AND ETC.,

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to respondent Nos.2 to 4 to consider her request for premature release of her son or grant of general parole for a period of 90 days to her son, who is a life convict – CTP No.583, in terms of the Prison Manual.

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:14492 WP No. 58 of 2024

¶27

Heard Sri.Sirajuddin Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Rahul Cariappa K.S., learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents.

¶28

Facts adumbrated are as follows:

¶29

The petitioner gets embroiled in a crime which ends up in his conviction in S.C.No.49/2005. On the registration of a crime for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 302 r/w. 149 of the IPC and Sections 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, the son of the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. By then, the petitioner was already in custody from 28.12.2004 itself, and continued to be in custody till the learned Sessions Judge convicted him for the aforesaid offences on 28.08.2007.

¶30

The son of the petitioner continues to be in prison and is now in prison for the last 18 years and 5 months. The jail authorities have also issued certificate favouring the son of the petitioner observing that his conduct has been exemplary throughout. On all the aforesaid basis, the petitioner seeks premature release of her son on the ground that her son has been a life convict for over 18 years and 5 months. The

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:14492 WP No. 58 of 2024

¶33

petitioner pleads that she is suffering from tuberculosis and desires that her son to be with her.

¶34

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

¶35

The afore-quoted facts are not in dispute and therefore, requires no reiteration. The son of the petitioner till date has not sought any parole and now the mother 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 son of the petitioner general parole for a period of 60 days, which becomes operational from the forenoon of 10.04.2024 upto the evening of 08.06.2024.

¶36

In view of the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

(i) The Writ Petition is allowed in part.

¶39

(i) A mandamus issues to the 2^nd respondent-State to consider the representation of the son of the petitioner - the detenue/Jyotiba, (CTP No.583) on

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:14492 WP No. 58 of 2024

¶42

general parole from the forenoon of 10.04.2024, till the evening of 08.06.2024.

¶43

(ii) The convict (CTP No.583) - 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.583) would evade going back to the gaol, after the expiry of the period of general parole.

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

(v) The petitioner 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.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

¶49

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 209

Shakuntala Vitthal Kamkar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakuntala Vitthal Kamkar 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

Sri Aditya Kankaria Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Basetty Trust Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Ameerul Sheeraz Vs Canara Bank

Smt. Geetha M Vs M/S. Harry'S Chicken and Sea Foods

Mr. Raghavendra Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Y M Manjunath Vs Dayanand M