Kaveriyamma Perumalappa Vs State of Karnataka

KAVERIYAMMA PERUMALAPPA W/O PERUMALAPPA, MOTHER OF CONVICT NAGESH P S/O PERUMALAPPA (CTP-12565) AGED 89 YEARS, R/AT 1/375 JOTHIPURAM J KARUPALLI, HOSSAPURAM KARUPALLI, KRISHNAGIRI TAMIL NADU-635113.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SMT. UMME SALMA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

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

¶15

THE CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON BENGALURU-560100.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA K.S., AGA)

¶18

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R2 THAT PETITIONERS SON CONVICT NAMELY NAGESH P S/O PERUMALAPPA (CTP-12565) LODGED IN CENTRAL PRISON, BENGALURU MAY BE ENLARGED / RELEASED OR GRANT GENERAL PAROLE FOR A PERIOD OF 90 DAYS FOR HOUSE RENOVATION.

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:16468 WP No. 9315 of 2025

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioner - the mother of the convict is before this Court seeking release of her son on parole for a period of 90 days.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel Smt. Umme Salma, appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate Sri. Rahul Cariappa K.S., appearing for the respondents.

¶26

The son of the petitioner gets embroiled in a crime and is convicted in S.C.No.5004/2017 for offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. The application is submitted by the mother of the convict for release of her son on parole, which comes to be declined. The son of the petitioner as on today undergone eight years and eight months of imprisonment and the reason now seeking parole is that he is the only son

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:16468 WP No. 9315 of 2025

¶29

and the mother is not in a position to undertake the task of renovation of the house, which is in a dilapidated condition.

¶30

The learned Additional Government Advocate on instructions and verification of records would submit that nothing adverse against the son of the petitioner is found in the last eight years in the prison and for the first time, the mother is seeking parole of her son.

¶31

In that light, I deem it appropriate to grant the son

¶32

of the petitioner general parole for a period of 60 days to become operational from 25.04.2025.

¶33

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

(i) The Writ Petition is allowed in part.

¶36

(ii) Mandamus issues respondent No.2 to consider the representation of the petitioner and release the convict on general parole for 60 days, from the forenoon of 25.04.2025, till the evening of 23.06.2025.

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:16468 WP No. 9315 of 2025

¶39

(iii) Respondent No.2 shall stipulate strict conditions as are usually stipulated, to ensure the return of the detenue (CTP No.12565) to the gaol and that he shall not commit any other offence during the period of general parole.

¶40

(iv) The convict (CTP No.12565) shall mark his attendance in the jurisdictional police station, 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 convict would evade going back to the gaol, after the expiry of the period of general parole.

¶41

(v) Registry is directed to communicate this order to respondent No.2, by way of electronic mail, forthwith.

¶42

(vi) The mother of the petitioner is at liberty to seek extension of parole, which shall be considered looking at the conduct of the convict.

¶43

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶44

KG

¶45

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 97

Kaveriyamma Perumalappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaveriyamma Perumalappa 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

Mr. C S Harikumar Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Sumuk Projects Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Krishna Priya Estates Pvt. Ltd., Vs the State of Karnataka

Ramesh M Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Sanjib K R Deori Vs the State of Karnataka

The Manager Vs Mr Rahul R M