Muniraja B M Vs State of Karnataka

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 TO RELEASE THE PETITIONERS BROTHER NARSIMHA ALIAS UDA CTP-13989 WHO IS LODGED IN R-2 CENTRAL PRISON ON GENERAL PAROLE FOR A PERIOD OF 90 DAYS CITING THAT THE PRESENCE OF HIS BROTHER IS ESSENTIAL TO OVERSEE REPAIR WORK OF THE HOUSE WHICH IS IN A DILAPIDATED CONDITION AND ALSO ON PREVIOUSLY HE HAS NOT RELEASED ON PAROLE.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:32214 WP No. 32902 of 2024

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

The petitioner's sibling is sentenced to undergo

¶31

imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC in SC No.165/2020 on the file of the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District. The petitioner seeks direction to the second respondent to release his brother on general parole for a period of ninety [90] days contending that his brother's presence would be required to oversee the repair work of the house which is in a dilapidated condition. The petitioner's brother, as stated in the Memorandum of Petition, has served four years and seven months of sentence and his application filed before September 2024 has not been decided.

¶32

Upon hearing Ms. Haleema Begum H, the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court has permitted the petitioner to place on record a copy of the Endorsement dated 08.07.2025 issued to the

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:32214 WP No. 32902 of 2024

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

petitioner9s brother and a copy of the report forwarded by the Police Superintendent, Bengaluru Rural District. It is stated in this report that if the petitioner's brother is admitted to parole, because of the previous enmity, there would be law-and-order situation. This Court has called upon the Police Inspector, Nandagudi Police Station, Hoskote Taluk, Bangalore Rural to be present and to file a report on why he apprehends the law-and-order situation if the petitioner is released on general parole.

¶37

Sri Bhanu Prakash, the learned Additional

¶38

Advocate General, on instructions from the officer who is present, submits that the information from the concerned complainant is that he will be under threat of physical harm with the petitioner coming out of the jail on parole. This Court is not persuaded to render an opinion based on this statement, but then this Court must opine that the question whether the petitioner must be admitted to general parole must

¶39

5 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:32214 WP No. 32902 of 2024

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

be considered in the light of the allegations against him and the purpose for which parole is granted to a convict and the concerned must examine all this in the light of the objectives enumerated in the Karnataka Prisons and Correctional Services Manual 2021 [for short, ' the Manual 2021' ]. The authorities cannot, on information that is not thoroughly assessed, arrive at conclusions which defeat the very purpose of parole.

¶43

As regards the grant of parole to the

¶44

petitioner's brother, with this Court in W.P.No.11541/2025 opining that every application for parole whether emergency or general must be decided in terms of the Manual 2021 by the Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services and not by the Superintendent of the concerned jail, is of the considered view that the petition must be disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an application either for general or emergency parole observing that

¶45

6 -

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:32214 WP No. 32902 of 2024

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

the petitioner's application must be duly considered calling for a report as is contemplated under the Manual 2021.

¶49

At this stage, Ms. Haleema Begum H., the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner9s brother could come under financial duress and unless the petitioner9s brother is extended timely parole, the entire process of consideration would be rendered futile. The learned counsel also submits that the process will be protracted to ensure that the petitioner is detained in prison without admitting him to parole.

¶50

This Court must observe that the Director

¶51

General of Prisons and Correctional Services will consider the petitioner9s request in terms of this Court9s observation in W.P.No.11541/2025 and the Senior Officer must consider the application within a timeline with liberty to the petitioner to approach this

¶52

7 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:32214 WP No. 32902 of 2024

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

Court if there is any failure in this regard. Hence, the

¶56

following:

¶57

ORDER

¶58

[A] The petitioner stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an application for parole [ either emergency or general ] in the prescribed form at the earliest even without waiting for a certified copy of this order directing the second respondent to call for report and forward the report and the details to the office of the Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services while also directing this Senior Officer to consider the application in the light of the material placed and take a decision within forty five [45] days from the date of application.

¶59

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶60

SA ct:sr

Muniraja B M v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muniraja B M 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Harish Kumar v Vs the Passport Officer

Sri Parashivamurthy Vs the Additional Deputy Commissioner

Shri.Rudramurthy S R Vs the Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Sri Rajesh G Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Shivakumar @ Kumara Vs State of Karnataka

All in Arena Sports and Cultural Association Vs State of Karnataka