Smt Sowmya Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 10.04.2025 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 IN NO. CPB/CTP-SEC/637/2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND ETC.

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the

¶30

following reliefs;

¶31

a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ seeking to quash the endorsement dated 10.04.2025 issued by Respondent No.2 in No. CPB/CTPSec/637/2025 vide ANNEXURE-D.

¶32

b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.2 to release the convicted prisoner - Manjunatha [CTP No.13054] on a general parole for a period of 90 days as requested in representation dated 01.04.2025 vide ANNEXURE-C.

¶33

c) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.3 to release the convicted prisoner Manjunatha [CTP No.13054] on a general parole for a period of 90 days as requested in representation dated 01.04.2025 vide ANNEXURE-C1.

¶34

d) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.4 to release the convicted prisoner Manjunatha [CTP No.13054] on a general parole for a period of 90 days as

¶35

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:43519 WP No. 16376 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

requested in representation dated 01.04.2025 vide ANNEXURE-C2.

¶38

e) Pass any such other order/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice & equity.

¶39

The petitioner is the wife of the detenue

¶40

Sri.Manjunatha (CTP No.13054) who was convicted by the Additional District and Session Judge, FTSC-II, Bengaluru Rural in Spl.C.No.164 of 2013 for offences under Section 376 (2) of the Indian Penal Code for imprisonment of 20 years. Which has been challenged by the detenue in Criminal Appeal No.185/2024 which is pending adjudication. An application for general parole having been made, the said application came to be rejected on the grounds

¶41

that the criminal appeal filed by the petitioner is pending. It is in that background that the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

¶42

The detenue having been convicted vide judgement dated 3.10.2022 as so far including under trial period, spent a period of 4 years 1 month 6 days and

¶43

4 -

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:43519 WP No. 16376 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

incarceration. Therefore, he is eligible for general parole to be granted.

¶47

The only reason why the application of detenue came to rejected is that the detenue who had filed an appeal challenging the order of conviction and sentence. Merely because there is an appeal which has been filed would not enure to the benefit of the respondents in rejecting an application for parole, inasmuch as the same would amount to the respondents insisting that no appeal is filed by detenure for purpose of consideration of a parole which should act against the principles in strained in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶48

The appeal which is pending would be considered on its own merits by the Court seized of the matter, the bail application would also be considered on its own merits. There is a distinction between parole and bail application inasmuch as parole applies for a short period of time, whereas bail would apply during the

¶49

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:43519 WP No. 16376 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

entire period of consideration of the appeal. The purpose of grant of parole being as enshrined in Chapter-34 is the above policy that the grant of parole liberalised to help a prisoner to maintain harmonious relationship with family, so as to ensure that is integration with a society at a later point of time is done in a proper manner.

¶52

Having come to a conclusion that the order of rejection of parole, solely on the ground that an appeal and application for bail being pending is not sustainable, I pass the following;

¶53

ORDER

¶54

i. The writ petition is allowed .

¶55

ii. A certiorari is issued, the endorsement dated 10.4.2025 issued by respondent No.2 in No.CPB/CTP-Sec/637/2025 at Annexure-D is quashed.

¶56

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:43519 WP No. 16376 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

iii. A mandamus is issued to respondent No.4 to release Sri.Manjunatha (CTP No.13054) on general payroll for a period of 90 days commencing from 3.11.2025, subject to the following conditions;

¶59

a. The prisoner (CTP No.13054) 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.13054) would evade going back to the gaol, after the expiry of the period of general parole.

¶60

b. 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.

¶61

c. The Registry is directed to communicate the order to the prison authorities for its immediate execution.

¶62

7 -

¶63

NC: 2025:KHC:43519 WP No. 16376 of 2025

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

d. Respondents to act on a printout of the uploaded copy of this order on the website of this Court, if so furnished by the petitioner, without waiting for certified copy thereof.

¶66

e. Learned AGA to communicate the above order to the respondents for immediate action.

¶67

f. Learned Registrar (Judicial) is directed to Communicate the operative portion of the above order to the concerned Authorities by way of email for necessary and immediate action.

¶68

Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶69

SR

¶70

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50

Smt Sowmya v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sowmya 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. S P Prasanna Vs the State of Karnataka

Coorg Wildlife Society Vs the Asst. Registrar of Co. Operative Society

Baby Lochana Priya Vs the Sub-Registrar

Sri Satish Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Karnataka Rajya Chillare Lottery Maratagarara Sangha (R) Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Thara Vs the State of Karnataka