M N Geetha Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

M N Geetha Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the petitioner to make another application in the prescribed form; if such application is filed, the concerned authority must consider it in accordance with the terms of the Karnataka Prisons and Correctional Services Manual - 2021. No direction for release on parole was issued.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's convict husband, who returned to prison on 04.02.2205 (as printed) after availing earlier parole of 90 days, is entitled to be released on general parole notwithstanding that, in terms of Clause - 638 of the Karnataka Prisons and Correctional Services Manual - 2021, no fresh application lies within six months of returning to prison from parole.

Court's answer

The Court accepted that, in terms of Clause - 638 of the Karnataka Prisons and Correctional Services Manual - 2021, the petitioner would not be entitled to make a fresh parole application within six months from the date of returning to the prison after parole, and that consequently no exception could be taken with the Endorsement dated 25.03.2025; the petition therefore had to be disposed of, but with liberty to the petitioner to make another application in the prescribed form.

Ratio / Principle

If the petitioner files a fresh application in the prescribed form, the concerned authority must consider it in accordance with the terms of the Karnataka Prisons and Correctional Services Manual - 2021.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

General parole - Karnataka Prisons and Correctional Services Manual, 2021, Clause 638 - Convict husband of the petitioner returned to prison on 04.02.2205 (date as printed) after availing earlier parole of 90 days; his fresh application for General Parole was declined by Endorsement dated 25.03.2025 (Annexure-B) of the Chief Superintendent, Central Prison, Mysore - Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 by the convict's wife seeking 30 days' general parole with 60 days' extension on the ground of her illness - Court held that, per Clause 638, no application lies within six months of return from parole, that no exception could be taken with the Endorsement, and disposed of the petition with liberty to file a fresh application in the prescribed form, to be considered in accordance with the Manual (B M Shyam Prasad, J.).

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:32854 WP No. 11906 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 11906 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE)

BETWEEN:

M N GEETHA W/O MUNDODI, M NANAIAH, @ NANDA CTP 00807 AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O NO. 90, MARAGODU, KODAGU, KARNATAKA - 571252.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SIRAJUDDIN AHMED.,ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N

Location: High Court of Karnataka

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA HOME DEPARTMENT, THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560001.

CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON, MYSORE 570007.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.RAHUL CARIAPPA., AGA)

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:32854 WP No. 11906 of 2025

HC-KAR

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO

DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO RELEASE PETITIONERS CONVICT HUSBAND MUNODI M NANAIAH AT NANDA CTP 00807 ON GENERAL PAROLE FOR A PERIOD OF 30 DAYS WITH FURTHER EXTENSION OF 60 DAYS ON THE GROUND THAT ILLNESS OF PETITIONER WHICH IS EVIDENT AND ISSUED BY THE GENERAL HOSPITAL PERIYAPATNA SH21 HASSAN. THE PRESENCE OF HER HUSBAND WHO IS A CONVICT IS ESSENTIAL TO PROVIDE MEDICAL CARE FOR EFFECTIVE TREATMENT AND RECOVERY.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR

PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:32854 WP No. 11906 of 2025

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is aggrieved by the second respondent's Endorsement dated 25.03.2025 [ Annexure-B ]. The second respondent has informed the petitioner that his application for General Parole cannot be considered because he has returned to the prison on 04.02.2205 after the benefit of earlier parole of 90 days.

Sri Rahul Cariappa, the learned Additional Government Advocate, submits that no exception can be taken with this Endorsement because the petitioner would not be entitled to make an application within six months from the date of returning to the prison on parole in terms of Clause - 638 of the Karnataka Prisons and Correctional Services Manual -2021 [for short, the 'Manual' ] .

Indeed that would be so, and the petition must be disposed of but with liberty to the petitioner to make another application in the prescribed form

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:32854 WP No. 11906 of 2025

HC-KAR

observing that if the application is filed, the

concerned must consider the same in accordance

with the terms of the Manual.

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

NV

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33