Mr C K Mallikarjuna Vs State of Karnataka

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT AS ANNEXURE-A ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 26/12/2023 BY DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2/CENTRAL PRISON, BANGALORE, TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON PAROLE FOR A PERIOD OF 90 DAYS IN PRISONER CTP NO.5447 CONVICTED BY THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DATED 06.02.2012 PASSED BY THE HONBLE DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, TUMKUR IN SC.NO.227/2010 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302, 392, R/W 397, 506 OF IPC.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following

¶26

prayers.

¶27

"1. Issue a Writ of Certiorari by quashing the endorsement as ANNEXURE-A issued by the 2nd Respondent dated 26/12/2023 No.BCP/J3/659/2023 by directing the Respondent No.2/Central Prison, Bangalore, to release the Petitioner on parole for a period of 90 days in prisoner CTP No.5447 convicted by the judgement and order dated 06.02.2012 passed by the Hon'ble District and Session Judge, Tumkur in SC.No.227/2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 392 r/w 397, 506 of IPC, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13964 WP No. 36409 of 2024

¶29

Issue such other suitable orders or direction as this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶30

Heard Shri Kiran S.S., learned counsel appearing

¶31

for the petitioner and Shri Rahul Cariappa, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

¶32

The petitioner gets embroiled in a crime in crime No.102/2010 on a crime being registered on 17.06.2010. Since then the petitioner is said to be in prison. The petitioner gets convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 392 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the IPC' for short).

¶33

The petitioner-convict has availed parole on nine occasions and the last of the parole that he availed was in the year 2023. An application comes to be rejected in the year 2023, itself. Now, the present petition is preferred seeking general parole and challenging the endorsement dated 26.12.2023.

¶34

In the normal circumstance, the petition would not be entertained, but showing lenience to the petitioner, as the challenge is to an order, which is two years old and no

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:13964 WP No. 36409 of 2024

¶37

application after the said order is submitted by the petitioner, notwithstanding the same, I deem it appropriate to grant general parole to the petitioner for a period of 60days to begin from 07.04.2025 to 05.06.2025.

¶38

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

(i) The Writ Petition is allowed in part.

¶41

(ii) The impugned endorsement bearing No.BCP/J3/659/2023 dated 26.12.2023 issued by respondent No.2 stands quashed.

¶42

(iii) Respondents No.2 and 3 to consider the representation of the petitioner and release the petitioner on general parole for 60days, from the forenoon of 07.04.2025, till the evening of 05.06.2025.

¶43

(iv) The respondents No.2 and 3 shall stipulate strict conditions as are usually stipulated, to ensure the return of the detenue (CTP No.5447) to the gaol and that he shall not commit any other offence during the period of general parole.

¶44

(v) The petitioner (CTP No.5447) shall mark his attendance in the jurisdictional police station,

¶45

5 -

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:13964 WP No. 36409 of 2024

¶47

weekly once throughout the period of his general parole and it would be the responsibility of the jurisdictional police to take him to gaol, in the event, the petitioner would evade going back to the gaol, after the expiry of the period of general parole.

¶48

(vi) Registry is directed to communicate this order to respondent Nos.2 and 3, by way of electronic mail, forthwith.

¶49

(vii) The petitioner is at liberty to seek extension of parole, which shall be considered looking at the conduct of the petitioner – convict while he is out on general parole.

¶50

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶51

JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5 CT: BHK

Mr C K Mallikarjuna v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr C K Mallikarjuna 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

Parvathamma Narshimaiah Charitable Trust Vs the Authorized Officer

Smt Nandini Sultana Vs Icici Bank Ltd.

Sri Kallamalige Ista Devatha Mundithaya Daivastana, Vs State of Karnataka

Srk Manpower Agency Vs State of Karnataka

Sri R Sathish Vs the Chief Superintendent

Thallihalla Krishne Gowda Pradeep Kumar Vs State of Karnataka