Allowed

Chandan v. B v the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Jan 2026WP/31282/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought parole for his father, a convict lodged in Central Prison, Bengaluru, on grounds of house repair and family safety. The court directed parole admission subject to monitoring conditions and police record-attendance, overriding the Prison Superintendent's denial.

What did the court decide?

Second respondent to admit the petitioner for general parole on terms of monitoring and police attendance.

Chandan v B Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:1678 WP No. 31282 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 31282 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

CHANDAN V B S/O. V. C. BALAJI, CONVICT, NAMELY BALAJI S/O. CHANNAKESHANNA (CTP-15352) AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/O. VENKATAPURA VILLAGE, PAVAGADA TALUK, VENKATAPURA, TUMKUR, KARNATAKA-561 202.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SMT. UMME SALMA.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

¶15

NC: 2026:KHC:1678 WP No. 31282 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA HOME DEPARTMENT, THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶18

THE CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT

¶19

CENTRAL PRISON, BENGALURU-560 100.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.B RAVINDRA., AGA)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TODIRECT THE R2 TO RELEASE THE PETITIONERS FATHER, CONVICT NAMELY BALAJU S/O CHANNAKESHANNA 9CTP-15352) ON GENERAL PAROLE FOR A PERIOD OF 90 DAYS.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS,

¶24

THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC:1678 WP No. 31282 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

The petitioner’s father is lodged in the Central Prison, Bengaluru upon conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC in SC No. 5024 of 2019 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madhugiri, Tumakuru District. The petitioner has been in prison for more than six years including the period under trial. The petitioner has applied for general parole contending that the presence of his father is required to ensure that the house is repaired/renovated.

¶31

The second respondent has called for a report from the office of the Superintendent of Police, Tumakuru, and the report is that [a] the petitioner's mother resides alone [b] the house does not require immediate repair and [c] if the petitioner's father is admitted to parole, the children in the village will be under threat. The second respondent, acting upon

¶32

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:1678 WP No. 31282 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

this report, has issued Endorsement dated

¶36

20.06.2025 refusing parole.

¶37

Ms. Umme Salma, the learned counsel for

¶38

the petitioner, and Sri B.Ravindranath, the learned Additional Government Advocate, who accepts notice for the respondents, are heard in the light of these circumstances as also the provisions of the Karnataka Prisons and Correctional Services Manual 2021 [for short, 'the Manual 2021 ']. The petitioner's father must generally file an application for parole in the prescribed Form which must be considered finally by the Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services under the provisions of the Manual - 2021 and this would be especially so after this Court's order dated 19.08.2025 dated W.P. No. 11541/2025.

¶39

However in the present case, because the Endorsement is issued in the month of June 2025 and the parole is rejected despite observing that the petitioner's mother resides alone, and more

¶40

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:1678 WP No. 31282 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

specifically the reason that the children in the village will feel threatened [without any elaboration], this Court is of the opinion that a case is made out to make an exception to admit the petitioner to parole on terms. Hence the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

[a] The petition is allowed calling upon the second respondent to admit the petitioner to General Parole in accordance with the terms of the Manual - 2021 upon the petitioner furnishing a copy of this order with the second respondent through email [ [email protected] ] addressed to the Chief Superintendent, Central Prison, Parappana Agrahara, Bengaluru - 560 100.

¶46

[b] It is observed that the second respondent shall impose such conditions as may be felt are necessary to ensure that the activities of the petitioner's father are duly monitored

¶47

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:1678 WP No. 31282 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

and to ensure his return on the completion of the parole period.

¶51

[c] The second respondent shall stipulate that the petitioner's father shall mark his attendance with the jurisdictional police once in three days.

¶52

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶53

Chandan v. B v the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandan v. B v the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Anjaneya Swamy Temple Trust (R) Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S.Psg Construction Vs the State of Karnataka

The Branch Manager Vs Srinivas D

Eunice Ruth Kribanithi D Vs Union of India

The Divisional Manager, Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Limited Vs C.R. Thimmanna @ Tamalihalli Thimmanna

John Tharian Thaliath Vs National Highways Authority of India