Disposed¶38

Basappa R Chakalabbi S/O Rudrappa v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Feb 2026WP/106579/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

General parole for convict; ordinary parole under Rule 191 Karnataka Prisons Rules, 1974; Inspector General of Prisons; 30 days parole extendable; writ petition not maintainable — alternative statutory remedy must be availed; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; GM-POLICE; Central Prison Dharwad; parole sought for mother's illness; petition disposed with liberty; single-judge order, Justice Lalitha Kanneganti.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy under Rule 191 of the Karnataka Prisons Rules, 1974; all I.As. in the writ petition stand closed. ¶38

Basappa R Chakalabbi S/O Rudrappa Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The writ petition was disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy under Rule 191 of the Karnataka Prisons Rules, 1974; all I.As. in the writ petition stand closed.

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition seeking release of the petitioner's son, a convict (Muttu @ Mrutunjaya, CTP-5045), on general parole for 90 days on the ground of the illness of the petitioner's wife is maintainable, when the remedy under Rule 191 of the Karnataka Prisons Rules, 1974 has not been availed.

¶36

Court's answer

The writ petition is not maintainable because the petitioner approached the High Court without availing the remedy available under Rule 191 of the Karnataka Prisons Rules, 1974.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

The Court recorded the scheme under Rule 191 of the Karnataka Prisons Rules, 1974: the Inspector General of Prison may release a prisoner on ordinary parole for a period not exceeding 30 days, extendable by periods not exceeding 30 days at a time, on an application submitted through the Superintendent, with particulars of sureties and genuineness of purpose ascertained from the Executive Magistrate and Police within 15 days — being the remedy the petitioner had not availed.

¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-POLICE) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the father of a convict (Muttu @ Mrutunjaya, CTP-5045, Central Prison, Dharwad) praying for a writ of mandamus directing Respondent No.2 (Chief Superintendent, Central Prison, Dharwad) to release the convict on general parole for 90 days on the ground of the illness of the petitioner's wife (pleaded as cervical and lumber spondylolysis requiring medical supervision). HELD: The writ petition is not maintainable, since the petitioner came to Court without availing the remedy available under Rule 191 of the Karnataka Prisons Rules, 1974, under which the Inspector General of Prison may release a prisoner on ordinary parole for up to 30 days (extendable by up to 30 days at a time) on an application through the Superintendent, with surety particulars and genuineness of purpose verified by the Executive Magistrate and Police within 15 days. Petition disposed of with liberty to avail the appropriate remedy under Rule 191; all I.As. closed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1735 WP No. 106579 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

¶5

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.106579 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

BASAPPA R CHAKALABBI S/O. RUDRAPPA, FATHER OF MUTTU @ MRUTUNJAYA CTP-5045 AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/O. NO. BENDIGERI ONI, KALGHATGI, KALGHATAGI, DHARWAD, KARNATAKA-581204.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. SIRAJUDDIN AHMED, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

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

¶15

CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, DHARWAD-580008.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶18

(BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT(S), ORDER(S) OR DIRECTION(S) AND THEREBY; A. DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO RELEASE PETITIONER'S SON CONVICT MUTTU @ MRUTUNJAYA CTP5045 ON GENERAL PAROLE FOR A PERIOD OF 90 DAYS ON THE GROUND THAT ILLNESS OF PETITIONER'S WIFE WHICH IS EVIDENT AND ISSUED BY THE KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE MEDICAL OFFICER. PRIMARY HEALTH CENTER NOOLVI. THE PRESENCE OF CONVICT WHO IS THE SON OF THE PETITIONER IS ESSENTIAL TO PROVIDE MEDICAL CARE FOR EFFECTIVE TREATMENT AND RECOVERY AND TO PROVIDE NECESSARY SUPPORT TO HIS MOTHER. B. PASS ANY OTHER ORDER(S) WHICH THIS COURT MAY DEEM FIT AND PROPER UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶20

2 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:1735 WP No. 106579 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following

¶26

prayers:

¶27

“a. Direct the Respondent No.2 to release petitioner's son convict MUTTU @ MRUTUNJAYA CTP-5045 on general parole for a period of 90 days on the ground that illness of petitioner's wife which is evident and issued by the Karnataka government office of administrative medical officer. Primary health center Noolvi. The presence of convict who is the Son of the petitioner is essential to provide medical care for effective treatment and recovery and to provide necessary support to his mother.

¶28

b. Pass any other order(s) which this court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.”

¶29

The petitioner is seeking relief from this Court to direct the respondent No.2 i.e., The Chief Superintendent, Central Prison, Dharwad to release the petitioner’s son on general parole for a period of 90 days on the ground of illness of petitioner’s wife. It is submitted that the wife of the petitioner is suffering from cervical and lumber spondylolysis and require medical supervision.

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:1735 WP No. 106579 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

As per Rule 191 of the Karnataka Prisons Rules, 1974, the Inspector General of Prison may release any prisoner on ordinary parole for a period not exceeding 30 days which may be extended for such time not exceeding 30 days at a time, as the Inspector General deems fit. Further, if a prisoner who desires to be released on ordinary parole, shall submit an application to the Superintendent, who shall forward the same along with his remarks to the Inspector General along with nominal roll of the prisoner and such additional information as may be required. The Superintendent shall ascertain from the Executive Magistrate of the concerned Taluk and the Police concerned, the particulars of the sureties before accepting them and the genuineness or otherwise of the purpose for which the prisoner has applied for grant of parole and the Executive Magistrate and the Police concerned within 15 days after the receipt of the such reference, forward the report to the Superintendent, failing which, it is presumed that they have nothing adverse to it. The Superintendent shall thereafter make his recommendation to the Inspector General of Prisons who shall examine and pass suitable orders for release of prisoner on parole subject to the conditions. The petitioner without availing

¶33

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1735 WP No. 106579 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

the remedy that is available as per Rule 191 of the Karnataka Prisons Rules, 1974 has come before this Court. Such a writ petition is not maintainable. Hence, this Court is passing the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

(i) Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy under Rule 191 of the Karnataka Prisons Rules, 1974.

¶39

(ii) All I.As. in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶40

Sd/JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶41

YAN CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

Basappa R Chakalabbi S/O Rudrappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basappa R Chakalabbi S/O Rudrappa 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

P Mohammed Rasool S/O Ismail Vs the Government Chief Executive Officer Food Civil Supplies and Consumer

Smt Rahamatbi W/O. Abdulsalam Vs Miyajan S/O. Muktumsab Abbigeri

Shri Neelakant S/O Basalingappa Indishetter Vs Shri Shankar S/O Shiddappa Chungadi

The Divisional Controller Vs Smt Hanamavva W/O Mallappa Hirala

Shri Baburao Chandrakant Jadhav Vs Dishesh Yallappa Jadhav

Veerayya Vs the District