Mrs. P Soniya Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Mrs. P Soniya Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the competent jail authorities upon completion of the stipulated six-month period, which the competent authority shall consider in accordance with law without being influenced by the withdrawal.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition seeking grant of the remaining period of general parole (30 days) or extension of parole for the petitioner's husband (CTP No. 11403) is maintainable, given the objection under Rule 191(2)(j)(ii) of the Karnataka Prison (Second Amendment) Rules, 2022 that a minimum interval of six months must elapse between two spells of general parole, reckoned from the date of surrender pursuant to the earlier parole.

Court's answer

On the learned counsel for the petitioner seeking leave to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the competent jail authorities in strict compliance with Rules, 2022, the Court permitted withdrawal of the petition.

Ratio / Principle

In the event the petitioner submits a fresh representation upon completion of the stipulated period of six months, placing reliance on the medical exigency pertaining to the surgical treatment of her son, the competent authority shall consider the same in accordance with law, keeping in view the governing Rules and the facts and circumstances of the case, without being influenced by the withdrawal of the present petition.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-POLICE) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution filed by the wife of inmate Sri Prasanna Kumar @ Bablu (CTP No. 11403, Central Prison, Parappana Agrahara) seeking directions to consider her representation dated 05.04.2026 and to grant the remaining period of general parole of 30 days, or alternatively extension of parole, in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka Prisons Rules. The Additional Government Advocate objected to maintainability, relying on Rule 191(2)(j)(ii) of the Karnataka Prison (Second Amendment) Rules, 2022, pointing out that the inmate had already availed general parole and two spells of 15-day emergency parole, and that the Rules prescribe a minimum interval of six months between two spells of general parole reckoned from the date of surrender pursuant to the earlier parole. In view of the objection, the petitioner's counsel sought leave to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the competent jail authorities in strict compliance with Rules, 2022. The Court permitted withdrawal and clarified that a fresh representation made after completion of the stipulated six-month period, resting on the medical exigency of the surgical treatment of the petitioner's son, shall be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law, keeping in view the governing Rules and the facts and circumstances, without being influenced by the withdrawal of the present petition. The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty reserved as indicated.

NC: 2026:KHC:20360 WP No. 11686 of 2026

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 11686 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE)

BETWEEN:

MRS. P SONIYA W/O PRASANNA KUMAR M, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT NO. 380, SANJAY GANDHI NAGAR, KGF, ROBERTSONPET POST, BANGARAPETE, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563122.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. GIRISH R, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AND PRISON, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, PARAPPANA AGRAHARA, BENGALURU - 560 100.

DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND INSPECTOR, GENERAL OF PRISON AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, NO.04, SESHADRI ROAD,

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:20360 WP No. 11686 of 2026

HC-KAR

BENGALURU - 560 009

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. K.P. YOGANNA, AGA)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 05.04.2026 AND TO GRANT THE REMAINING PERIOD OF GENRAL PAROLE OF 30 DAYS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO GRANT EXTENSION OF PAROLE TO THE PETITIONERS HUSBAND SRI PRASANNA KUMAR / BABLU (CTP NO. 11403) IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE KARNATAKA PRISONS RULES AND ETC.,

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. Perused the records.

The learned Additional Government Advocate, placing strong reliance on Rule 191(2)(j)(ii) of the Karnataka Prison (Second Amendment) Rules, 2022 (for short, 'Rules, 2022'),

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:20360 WP No. 11686 of 2026

HC-KAR

has raised a serious objection to the maintainability of the present petition. He would contend that the petitioner, having already availed general parole, has also secured emergency parole for a period of 15 days on two separate occasions and, therefore, is not entitled to seek further parole in deviation of the statutory mandate. It is specifically contended that the Rules unequivocally prescribe that there shall be a minimum interval of six months between two spells of general parole, reckoned from the date of surrender pursuant to the earlier parole. On these grounds, he submits that the present petition is premature and not maintainable.

In the light of the aforesaid objection and on a careful consideration of the statutory framework governing grant of parole, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the competent jail authorities in strict compliance with Rules, 2022.

Recording the said submission, this Court deems it appropriate to permit withdrawal of the petition. However, it is made clear that, in the event the petitioner submits a fresh representation upon completion of the stipulated period of six

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:20360 WP No. 11686 of 2026

HC-KAR

months, placing reliance on the medical exigency pertaining to the surgical treatment of his son, the competent authority shall consider the same in accordance with law, keeping in view the governing Rules and the facts and circumstances of the case, without being influenced by the withdrawal of the present petition.

With the above observations, the writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn , reserving liberty as indicated above.

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

HDK

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2