Partly allowed¶41

Ranjith K @ Batta v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC25 Apr 2025WP/10931/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

General parole; convict release; writ under Articles 226 and 227; Prison Manual; S.302 r/w. 34 IPC; S.C.No.1199/2012; conviction judgment dated 09.05.2014; CTP No.7154; Central Prison Parappana Agrahara; marriage fixed 09.05.2025; sixth/seventh parole occasion; no adverse record; State no objection; 60-day parole against 90 days sought; weekly attendance at jurisdictional police station; strict usual conditions; mandamus to Chief Superintendent; Karnataka High Court; M.Nagaprasanna J.; GM-POLICE.

What did the court decide?

Release of the petitioner-convict (CTP No.7154) on general parole for 60 days from the date of release, subject to weekly attendance at the jurisdictional police station and such strict conditions as respondent No.3 usually stipulates. ¶41

Ranjith K @ Batta Vs the State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner-convict (CTP No.7154), whose marriage was scheduled on 09.05.2025 and who had previously availed six uneventful paroles, should be directed to be released on general parole for 90 days in terms of the Prison Manual.

¶23

Court's answer

In the light of the submissions, the Court deemed it appropriate to grant general parole for a period of 60 days (as against the 90 days prayed for), i.e., the writ petition was allowed in part.

¶39

Ratio / Principle

Mandamus issued to respondent No.3 to release the petitioner (Convict – CTP No.7154) on general parole for 60 days, commencing from the date of his release.

¶42

Key takeaways

Condition imposed: the convict shall mark attendance at the jurisdictional police station once weekly throughout the parole period, and it shall be the responsibility of the jurisdictional police to take him to gaol if he evades returning after expiry of the parole.ratio¶43
Respondent No.3 shall stipulate the usual strict conditions to ensure the convict's return to gaol and that he commits no other offence during the parole period.ratio¶44
Registry directed to communicate the order to respondent No.3 forthwith by electronic mail.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (M.Nagaprasanna, J.), oral order dated 25.04.2025 in WP No.10931 of 2025 (GM-POLICE): A convict (CTP No.7154), convicted in S.C.No.1199/2012 for the offence under Section 302 r/w. 34 of the IPC by judgment dated 09.05.2014 and confined in Central Prison, Parappana Agrahara, filed a writ under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking release on general parole for 90 days in terms of the Prison Manual on the score of his marriage fixed on 09.05.2025. The Additional Government Advocate, on instructions and verification of the record, submitted that the convict had availed six earlier paroles, returned to gaol on completion of each period, and that nothing adverse was on record; the State did not object to the seventh parole. Allowing the petition in part, the Court issued mandamus to respondent No.3 (Chief Superintendent, Central Prison) to release the petitioner on general parole for 60 days from the date of release, conditioned upon marking attendance weekly once at the jurisdictional police station throughout the parole period, with the jurisdictional police responsible for taking him back to gaol if he evaded return; respondent No.3 was to stipulate the usual strict conditions to ensure return and abstention from fresh offences, and the Registry was directed to communicate the order by electronic mail forthwith.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:17165 WP No. 10931 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 10931 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RANJITH K., @ BATTA S/O C.KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT NO.109, DEVARAJU BUILDING PUTTARAJU LAYOUT, KALKERE BANNERGHATTA ROAD BENGALURU – 560 083.

¶9

NOW IN CENTRAL PRISON HAVING CTP NO.7154 PARAPPANA AGRAHARA BENGALURU – 560 100.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

(BY SRI MANJUNATHA RAO LOKANDE N., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶15

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE BENGALURU DISTRICT BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:17165 WP No. 10931 of 2025

¶18

THE CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON PARAPPANA AGARAHARA

¶19

BENGALURU – 560 100.

¶20

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE KARNATAKA PRISON CORRECTIONAL SERVICES SHESHADRI ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 009.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

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

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-3 TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON GENERAL PAROLE FOR 90 DAYS (CONSIDERING PRODUCED VIDE ANNX-C) TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.,

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The petitioner - convict (CTP No.7154) – Ranjith K. Batta,

¶28

is before this Court seeking a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to respondent No.3 to release the convict on general parole for a period of 90 days in terms of the Prison Manual.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:17165 WP No. 10931 of 2025

¶31

Heard Sri Manjunatha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rahul Cariappa, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents – State.

¶32

The petitioner – convict embroiled in a crime for the offence under Section 302 r/w. 34 of the IPC. He is tried and convicted in S.C.No.1199/2012, for the offences, in terms of the judgment of the concerned Court dated 09.05.2014. The petitioner is before this Court seeking his release on general parole on the score that his marriage is scheduled on 09.05.2025.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the convict is in prison for the last 11 years, 8 months and 9 days. As the marriage of the petitioner – convict is fixed and release of the convict is required.

¶34

Learned Additional Government Advocate on

¶35

instructions and verification of the record would submit that the convict was on parole for 6 occasions and this is the 7^th time. In all the 6 occasions, the convict has return to the gaol after

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17165 WP No. 10931 of 2025

¶37

completion of the period of the parole. There is nothing adverse against the petitioner. Though the petitioner has availed 6 occasions, he would not object to grant parole as the marriage of the convict is fixed.

¶38

In the light of the aforesaid submissions, I deem it

¶39

appropriate to grant general parole for a period of 60 days. Therefore, the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

(i) The Writ Petition is allowed in part.

¶42

(ii) Mandamus issues to respondent No.3 to release the petitioner (Convict – CTP No.7154) on general parole for a period of 60 days, which commences from the date of his release.

¶43

(iii) The convict (CTP No.7154) - 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.7154) would evade going back to the gaol, after the expiry of the period of general parole.

¶44

(iv) Respondent No.3 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.

¶45

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17165 WP No. 10931 of 2025

¶46

(v) Registry is directed to communicate this order to respondent No.3, by way of electronic mail, forthwith.

¶47

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA)

¶48

JUDGE

¶49

JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48 CT:SS

Ranjith K @ Batta v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjith K @ Batta v. the 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

Sri a R Kumata Ramaiah Vs Smt Renuka

Manja @ Manjunatha Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Umar Khatri Vs the Station House Officer

School Book Company Vs Canara Bank

K R Ramachandraiah Vs Repatriates Co. Operative Finance and Development Bank Limited

Mr Rajanna Vs M/S Canara Bank