Sri. Manjunath v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Sept 2025WP/26957/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

General parole; life convict; house-repair ground; rejection endorsement BCP/CTPSEC/17149/2024 dated 30.12.2024; Karnataka Prisons and Correctional Services Manual 2021; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; WP No. 26957 of 2025 (GM-POLICE); Central Prison Parappana Agrahara; SC No.312/2017; disposed with liberty to file application under the Manual.

What did the court decide?

The petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the parole request by filing an application as contemplated under the Karnataka Prisons and Correctional Services Manual, 2021, so that it is examined in the light of the Manual's objectives; the sought 90-day general parole was not granted. ¶¶37

Sri. Manjunath Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be directed, by a writ in the nature of mandamus, to grant general parole of 90 days to the petitioner's brother (a life convict), with setting aside of the third respondent's rejection endorsement.

¶¶25

Court's answer

A request for grant of parole must necessarily be examined in the light of the objectives underlined by the Karnataka Prisons and Correctional Services Manual, 2021, provided an application is filed as contemplated thereunder.

¶¶36

Key takeaways

On the grounds stated (that the convict's presence would be required for repairs of the house), the petitioner may not have made out a case for grant of parole; the court did not finally adjudicate this, leaving examination to be done under the Manual.obiter¶¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-POLICE) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the brother of a life convict (convicted in SC No.312/2017, XLV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru; Convict Prisoner No. 14749, Central Prison, Bengaluru) against the third respondent's endorsement No. BCP/CTPSEC/17149/2024 dated 30.12.2024 rejecting his request for 90 days' general parole sought on the ground that the convict's presence was required for repairs of the house, the rejection resting on a Jurisdictional Police report that the family members had not undertaken any repair. The Court (B M Shyam Prasad, J., Oral Order) observed that the petitioner may not have made out a case on the grounds stated, but held that a request for grant of parole must necessarily be examined in the light of the objectives underlined by the Karnataka Prisons and Correctional Services Manual, 2021, provided an application is filed as contemplated thereunder. Petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move afresh under the Manual; no parole granted.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:36922 WP No. 26957 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 26957 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. MANJUNATH S/O LATE RAMANNA SHETTY AGED 52 YEARS, R/AT NO. 302, S M RESIDENCY BOWEE STREET, HALASURU BENGALURU - 560008

¶10

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

(BROTHER OF CONVICT CURRENTLY SERVING LIFE IMPRISONMENT AT CENTRAL PRISON, BENGALURU ) (CONVICT PRISONER NO. 14749)

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. VIJAYA PRASSAD.,ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:36922 WP No. 26957 of 2025

HC-KAR

VIDHANA SOUDHA

BENGALURU - 560001.

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE PRISONS AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES NO.9, SHESHADRI ROAD GANDHI NAGAR BENGALURU - 560009.

¶22

THE CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON, PARAPPANA AGRAHARA ELECTRONIC CITY POST BENGALURU - 560100.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SMT.K.P. YASHODHA., AGA)

¶25

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENT LETTER ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO. 03 BEARING NO BCP/CTPSEC/17149/2024 DATED 30/DEC/2024 ANNEXURE-D AND ISSUE A WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO THE RESPONDENTS TO GRANT GENERAL PAROLE OF 90 DAYS TO THE PETITIONER ANNXURE-D.

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:36922 WP No. 26957 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

The petitioner seeks general parole for his brother who is convicted for life for atrocities on a woman in SC No.312/2017 on the file of the XLV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. The petitioner seeks parole for his brother on the ground that his presence would be required for repairs of the house. The third respondent vide the impugned endorsement dated 30.12.2024 has rejected such request based on the report filed by the Jurisdictional Police stating that the petitioner’s family members have not undertaken any repair.

¶31

Mr. Vijaya Prasad, the learned counsel for the

¶32

petitioner, and Ms.K.P.Yashodha, the learned Additional Government Advocate, who is called upon

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:36922 WP No. 26957 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

to accept notice for the respondents, are heard. The petitioner may not have made out a case for grant of parole on the grounds stated but then a request for grant of parole must necessarily be examined in the light of the objectives underlined by the Karnataka Prisons and Correctional Services Manual, 2021 provided an application is filed as contemplated thereunder.

¶37

With liberty in this regard to the petitioner, the petition stands disposed of.

¶38

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶39

SA ct:sr

Sri. Manjunath v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Manjunath 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

Darshan Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Kalavakuri Subramanyama Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Balakrishna Vs the State of Karnataka

Tumkur Dasara Samithi Vs the State of Karnataka

Abdelagaliil Hassan Ahmed Suliman Vs Union of India

Lokesh Kumar S Vs the Bhavasara Kshatriya Co-Operative Bank Limited