Allowed¶38

Dayananda G K v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Dec 2025WP/31188/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

General parole for convicted prisoner; writ petition (GM-Police) under Articles 226 & 227, Constitution of India; parole rejected on adverse police report covering only conviction, no flight-risk or victim-safety findings; satisfactory jail conduct; 7 years 7 months 20 days served; 60-day parole from 22.12.2025 with weekly police-station reporting; Central Prison Belagavi; IPC Sections 148, 302 r/w 149 and 120(B) r/w 302; life sentence; conjugal obligations and newborn child grounds.

What did the court decide?

Release of convict Kumar @ Kummya (CTP-4048) on parole for 60 days commencing 22.12.2025 (against 90 days sought), subject to weekly attendance at the jurisdictional police station and strict conditions to be stipulated by the State to ensure return to gaol and no offence during parole. ¶38

Dayananda G K Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the convict Kumar @ Kummya (CTP-4048) should be released on general parole for 90 days to look after his ailing wife who has given birth to a baby boy, maintain social ties and perform conjugal obligations. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

Taking into consideration that the detenu's conduct while incarcerated was satisfactory and there was no particular complaint against him, the Court proceeded to grant parole.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

The police report relied upon to reject the parole application dealt only with the detenu's conviction and did not address flight risk or any risk of harm between the petitioner/detenu and the victim.

¶34

Key takeaways

The Chief Superintendent, Central Prison, Belagavi was directed to release Kumar @ Kummya (CTP-4048) on parole for 60 days commencing 22.12.2025, subject to weekly marking of attendance at the jurisdictional police station and such strict conditions as the State usually stipulates to ensure return to gaol and commission of no offence during parole.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Suraj Govindaraj, J.), by oral order dated 15.12.2025, allowed a writ petition filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution by the brother-in-law of convict Kumar @ Kummya (CTP-4048) seeking 90 days' general parole to look after his ailing wife who had given birth to a baby boy, maintain social ties and perform conjugal obligations. The detenu had been convicted in S.C.No.228/2018 c/w S.C.No.392/2019 for offences under Sections 148, 302 r/w 149 and 120(B) r/w 302 IPC by the XII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, sentenced on 28.07.2021 with life imprisonment, and had served 07 years 07 months 20 days as on 01.09.2025 with satisfactory jail conduct. His parole application had been rejected on account of an adverse police report; the Court found the report dealt only with the conviction and did not address flight risk or harm between the petitioner/detenu and the victim, and accordingly directed release on parole for 60 days from 22.12.2025, conditioned on weekly attendance at the jurisdictional police station and such strict conditions as the State usually stipulates to ensure return to gaol and abstention from fresh offences during parole.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:53256 WP No. 31188 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 31188 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

DAYANANDA G K S/O KRISHNA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, BROTHER IN LAW OF KUMAR @ KUMMYA CTP-4048 R/O. NO. 230, 8TH CROSS, VENKATAPURA BANGALORE, KARNATAKA - 560034

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SIRAJUDDIN AHMED, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON BELAGAVI- 560100.

¶15

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

SHO GOKAK TOWN P.S GOKAK 591307 JURISDICTIONAL POLICE STATION

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

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

¶19

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 TO RELEASE THE CONVICT KUMAR ALIAS KUMMYA CTP-4048 ON GENERAL PAROLE FOR A PERIOD OF 90 DAYS IN ORDER TO LOOK AFTER HIS AILING WIFE WHO HAS GIVEN BIRTH TO A BABY BOY AND TO MAINTAIN SOCIAL TIES AND PERFORM CONJUGAL OBLIGATION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

¶22

NC: 2025:KHC:53256 WP No. 31188 of 2025

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The Brother-in-law of Kumar @ Kummya (CTP-4048)

¶27

is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶28

a. Direct the R-2 to release the convict Kumar alias Kummya CTP-4048 on general parole for a period of 90 days in order to look after his ailing wife who has given birth to a baby boy and to maintain social ties and perform conjugal obligation in the interest of justice.

¶29

b. Pass such other order/s which this court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.

¶30

The detenu had been convicted in S.C.No.228/2018 c/w S.C.No.392/2019 for offences under Section 148, 302, R/w 149 IPC and 120(B) R/w 302 of IPC by the XII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi and sentenced on 28.07.2021 with the highest of the sentence being imprisonment for life. The detenu has served a period of 07 years 07 months 20 days of imprisonment as on 01.09.2025 and his conduct in jail is said to be satisfactory. The petitioner having made an application for parole on the ground that his

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:53256 WP No. 31188 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

wife had delivered a baby, the same came to be rejected on account of adverse report having received by the police.

¶34

A perusal of the police report indicates that it deals with the conviction of the detenu and does not cover any issue as regards the petitioner being a flight risk and/or could cause any harm or injury to the victim or victim causing any harm to the detenu.

¶35

In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the conduct of the detenu has been satisfactory while in incarcerated, there is no particular complaint against the detenu, I pass the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

i. The Writ Petition is allowed .

¶38

ii. Respondent–Chief Superintendent, Central Prison, Belagavi, is directed to release the detenu- Kumar @ Kummya (CTP-4048) on parole for a period of 60 days commencing

¶39

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:53256 WP No. 31188 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

from 22.12.2025, subject to the following

¶43

conditions:

¶44

A. The prisoner- CTP-4048 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 them to gaol, in the event, the convict would evade going back to the gaol, after the expiry of the period of parole.

¶45

B. Respondent No.1- State of Karnataka shall stipulate strict conditions as are usually stipulated to ensure return of the detenu to the gaol and that he shall not commit any other offence during the period of parole.

¶46

iii. The Registry is directed to communicate the order to the prison authority for its immediate execution.

¶47

SD/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶48

¶49

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 20

Dayananda G K v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dayananda G K 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

Sri P R Balaji Vs M/S Bhumi Enterprises

M/S. Sorting Hat Technologies Private Limited Vs Nimisha Bansal

Mr. Nazru Sheeries Basheer, Vs Shri K S Narayana

Shri v Srinivas Redy Vs the Union of India

Sri Shaji D Vs the Deputy Registrar of Co. Operative Societies

Rashid Vs State of Karnataka