Abdul Vazid, Vs State of Karnataka

ABDUL VAZID, W/O. JANI SAB, F/O WASEEM PASHA CTP-268 AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT NO.16, WARD NO 9, NEAR MEKKA MASJID, SHETTIHALLIBEEDI MOHALLA, RAMANAGARA, RAMANAGARAM, KARNATAKA-562159

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. SIRAJUDDIN AHMED.,ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA HOME DEPARTMENT, THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:6456 WP No. 2334 of 2026

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶20

CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON KALABURAGI - 585308.

¶21

SHO RAMANGARA TOWN P.S KARNATAKA - 562159 (JURISDICTIONAL POLICE STATION).

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI.B. RAVINDRANATH., AGA)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT RESPONDENT NO.2 TO RELEASE THE PETITIONERS SON, WASEEM PASHA CTP NO.268, CURRENTLY LODGED IN KALABURAGI CENTRAL PRISON, ON GENERAL PAROLE FOR A PERIOD OF 90 DAYS, TO ENABLE HIM TO CARE FOR HIS FATHER, WHO IS A SENIOR CITIZEN SUFFERING FROM VARIOUS HEALTH AILMENTS AND WHO HAS BEEN ADVISED COMPLETE BED REST AND TO CONSULT A SURGEON FOR FURTHER TREATMENT.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR

¶26

PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:6456 WP No. 2334 of 2026

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

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

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

The petitioner's son [ Sri Waseem Pasha ] is in

¶33

custody upon being sentenced to life in SC No.35/2015 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagar. The petitioner's son is convicted for offences punishable under Section 302 and other offences under the Indian Penal Code,

¶34

1860 and under the Arms Act, 1959. The Superintendent of Prisons, Kalaburagi [ the second respondent ], upon receipt of an application for general parole, has called for a report from the Office of the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru South and on receipt of such report has issued an Endorsement dated 31.12.2025 [ Annexure-C ]. The second respondent has issued the endorsement opining that there is every possibility of the petitioner's son engaging in unlawful activities if he is released on parole.

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:6456 WP No. 2334 of 2026

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

This Court in W.P.No.11541/2025 [GM-

¶39

POLICE], which is decided on 19.08.2025, has considered whether it would be open to the Superintendent of a Jail to consider the application for parole because of the provisions of Rule 191[3][a] of the Karnataka Prison Rules, 1974. This Court has opined that the proviso to Rule 191[3][a] of the Rules was intended as an exigent measure to be in force for a limited period because of the difficulties brought by Covid-19 pandemic and that with those difficulties having abated, there will be no reason for continuance of an exigent arrangement stifling the procedure that is contemplated under the Karnataka Prisons and Correctional Services Manual 2021 [for short, 'the Manual 2021 ']. This Court's observations are as under:

¶40

"This Court must opine that the proviso to Rule 191 [3][a] of the Rules was intended as an exigent measure to be in force for a limited period because of the difficulties wrought by Covid-19 and with those difficulties having abated with the situation easing, this Court does not find any reason for continuance of an

¶41

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:6456 WP No. 2334 of 2026

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

exigent arrangement stifling the procedure that is contemplated under the Manual 2021, especially when the regulations have ceased to operate. Further, with the procedure under the Manual 2021 not being followed but the decision being taken based on an exigent procedure, this Court is called upon to address multiple applications calling for reports from the concerned police when the decision could be taken in terms of the Manual 2021 without offence to the provisions of the Act and the Rules on parole in terms of the Manual 2021."

¶44

3. This Court has ultimately opined that,

¶45

unless a specific notification is issued by the Government, every application for parole [ whether emergency or general ], shall be considered under the procedure contemplated under Manual, 2021 and in terms of this procedure, the Superintendent of Jail is required to call for a report from the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police [ or the Sub-Divisional Police ] and forward the report for a decision by the Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services. The procedure in this regard is elaborated in paragraph 648 of the Manual, 2021.

¶46

6 -

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:6456 WP No. 2334 of 2026

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

This Court must observe that

¶50

notwithstanding specific directions as aforesaid, there are instances where the Chief Superintendent exercises jurisdiction to reject the applications for general parole. This affords a cause for intervening to quash the impugned Endorsement dated 31.12.2025 with directions to the second respondent [ the Superintendent of Police ] to forward, as is required under paragraph 648 of the Manual, 2021, to the Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services the application and report received for due consideration. In the light of the afore, the following:

¶51

ORDER

¶52

[A] The petition stands disposed of reserving liberty to the learned counsel for the petitioner to forward a certified copy of this order to the second respondent by email [ [email protected] ] and directing the second respondent to forward the copy of the application, the report and all other

¶53

7 -

¶54

NC: 2026:KHC:6456 WP No. 2334 of 2026

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

documents to the Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services within fifteen [15] days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶57

[B] The Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services is called upon to decide upon the petitioner's application and communicate the decision within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of all the documents forwarded by the petitioner.

¶58

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶59

SA ct:sr

Abdul Vazid, v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Vazid, 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

Mr. Ramaswamy Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Harish Vs the State of Karnataka

Shashikala Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Jayaramu N Vs State of Karnataka

Metello Sports and Cultural Association Vs State of Karnataka

Yogananda H N Vs the Karnataka State Bar Council