Partly allowed¶¶34

Rukmini Yalebalikar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Feb 2025WP/100530/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC Dharwad; WP No.100530 of 2025 (GM-POLICE); decided 14.02.2025; judge M.Nagaprasanna; parole; general parole 60 days from 17.02.2025; convict Sagar CTP No.4072; Section 304(II) IPC; ten-year sentence; 4 years 5 months served; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution; writ of mandamus; Central Prison Belagavi; Umme Salma for petitioner; Sharad V. Magadum AGA for State; weekly police-station reporting condition; extension liberty based on conduct; petition allowed in part.

What did the court decide?

Release of the petitioner's son, convict CTP No.4072, on general parole for sixty days commencing 17.02.2025 (against the prayed-for ninety days), via mandamus to the respondents, subject to weekly police-station attendance and strict return/no-new-offence conditions, with liberty to seek extension. ¶¶34

Rukmini Yalebalikar Vs State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent 2 should be directed to release the petitioner's son, convict Sagar (CTP No.4072), on general parole (prayed for a period of 90 days, continuing in ¶21 beyond the page break).

¶¶18

Court's answer

The Court deems it appropriate to grant the parole for a period of sixty days commencing from 17.02.2025, reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek extension at the hands of the Court.

¶¶31

Ratio / Principle

Mandamus issues to the respondents to consider the petitioner's case and release the detenue, Sagar S/o. Vittal Yalebailkar (CTP No.4072), on general parole for sixty days commencing 17.02.2025, operational from the forenoon of 17.02.2025, subject to stipulated conditions.

¶¶35

Key takeaways

Condition imposed: the convict (CTP No.4072) shall mark his attendance in the jurisdictional police station weekly once throughout the parole period.ratio¶¶36
It is the responsibility of the jurisdictional Police to take the convict back to gaol if he would evade returning after expiry of the period of general parole.ratio¶¶39
Respondent No.1 shall stipulate strict conditions as usually stipulated to ensure return of the detenue to the gaol and that he commits no other offence during the parole period.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench (M. Nagaprasanna, J.) — Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by Rukmini Yalebalikar, mother of convict Sagar (CTP No.4072), who was convicted under Section 304(II) of the IPC and sentenced to ten years' imprisonment, of which he had already served 4 years 5 months, seeking his release on general parole for 90 days (stated to be his first parole; the learned AGA, on instructions, reported no adverse entry on the conduct). The Court deemed it appropriate to grant parole for sixty days commencing 17.02.2025 and issued mandamus to the respondents to consider the petitioner's case and release the detenue on general parole for that period, operational from the forenoon of 17.02.2025, subject to conditions: weekly attendance marking at the jurisdictional police station, responsibility of the jurisdictional Police to return him to gaol if he evades return after expiry, and Respondent No.1 to stipulate the usual strict conditions ensuring return to gaol and non-commission of any other offence during parole. The petitioner was left at liberty to seek extension, to be considered on the convict's conduct while on parole. Petition allowed in part.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3090 WP No. 100530 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.100530 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

RUKMINI YALEBALIKAR W/O. VITTHAL, MOTHER OF PRISONER SAGAR S/O. YALEBALIKAR, CTP NO.4072, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O: 74/1, PAKKHARE GALLI, IDALHONDA, BELAGAVI, KARNATAKA – 591 302.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI UMME SALMA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad

¶14

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

¶15

CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON BELAGAVI, KARNATAKA – 591 108.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT(S), ORDER(S) OR DIRECTION(S) AND THEREBY, DIRECT THE RESPONDENT 2 TO RELEASE THE SON OF THE PETITIONER SAGAR S/O. VITTAL YALEBAIKAR CTP 4072 ON GENERAL

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3090 WP No. 100530 of 2025

¶21

PAROLE FOR A PERIOD OF 90 DAYS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC.,

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

¶25

The petitioner is the mother of convict, who gets convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304(II) of the IPC and is said to have sentenced to undergo imprisonment for ten years, out of which the son of the petitioner has already served 4 years 5 months imprisonment.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel Smt. Umme Salma appearing for petitioner and learned AGA Shri Sharad V.Magadum appearing for the respondents - State.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has now filed an application seeking release of her son on parole and this is the first parole in favour of the son of the petitioner.

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3090 WP No. 100530 of 2025

¶29

Learned AGA on instructions submits that there

¶30

is no adverse entry on the conduct of the petitioner.

¶31

In that light, I deem it appropriate to grant the parole for a period of sixty days commencing from 17.02.2025, reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek extension at the hands of this Court.

¶32

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

(1) The petition is allowed in part.

¶35

(2) Mandamus issues to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and release the detenue / Sagar S/o. Vittal Yalebailkar (CTP No.4072) on general parole for sixty days commencing from 17.02.2025, which becomes operational from the forenoon of 17.02.2025. subject to the following conditions:

¶36

(i) The convict (CTP No.4072) 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

¶37

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3090 WP No. 100530 of 2025

¶39

take him to gaol, in the event, the convict (CTP No.4072) would evade going back to the gaol, after the expiry of the period of general parole.

¶40

(ii) Respondent No.1 shall stipulate strict conditions as are usually stipulated, to ensure return of the detenue to the gaol and that he shall not commit any other offence during the period of parole.

¶41

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

¶42

(4) The registry is directed to communicate the order to the prison authority for its execution.

¶43

SD/(M.NAGAPRASANNA)

¶44

JUDGE

¶45

VNP/CT-ASC

¶46

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 153

Rukmini Yalebalikar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rukmini Yalebalikar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Arnab Goswami Vs the State of Karnataka

Shanthakumara Swamy M G Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. B. K. Amarnath Vs Central Bureau of Investigation Anti Corruption Branch

Genus Power Infrastructures Limited Vs Hubli Electricity Supply Company Limited

Pandappagouda S/O. Vittalagouda Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

Basavant S/O. Kareppa Metri Vs the State of Karnataka