Sri Karunakar M @ Karna @ Karun Vs the Director General of Police

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT TO BE PLEASED TO ISSUE A WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO THE RESPONDENTS TO RELEASE THE PETITINER ON GENERAL PAROLE FOR A PERIOD OF 90 DAYS.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Petitioner who is presently serving sentence in Shivamogga Central Prison is seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus to respondents to release the petitioner on general parole for a period of 90 days.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA.

¶28

The petitioner is a convict prisoner in S.C. No.1/2023, having been found guilty of offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as well as Sections 3 and 4 of

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:16858 WP No. 34135 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is stated that the petitioner

¶32

has undergone incarceration for a period of more than three (3) years, one (1) month and fifteen (15) days. The petitioner asserts that his conduct in prison has been satisfactory. It is further averred that the petitioner’s mother, aged about 72 years, has suffered a stroke and is in need of constant care and assistance. In that background, the petitioner had submitted an application seeking grant of parole. However, the said request came to be rejected by the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Prison, based on an adverse report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Shivamogga. Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶33

This Court has carefully examined the medical records produced along with the petition. The documents placed on record prima facie indicate that the petitioner’s mother has suffered a stroke and requires assistance. Though the petitioner has sought parole for a period of

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:16858 WP No. 34135 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

ninety (90) days in the present writ petition, it is not in dispute that the original application submitted before the authorities was for a period of thirty (30) days. The rejection of parole by the prison authorities is primarily founded on the apprehension expressed in the report of the Superintendent of Police that the petitioner may violate the conditions of parole. However, the object underlying grant of parole is to enable a convict to maintain social and familial ties and to facilitate reintegration into society. Such apprehensions, in the absence of cogent material, cannot be a ground to deny parole when sufficient cause is otherwise made out.

¶38

Having regard to the medical condition of the petitioner’s mother and the material placed on record, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of general parole for a limited period. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on parole for a period of thirty (30) days.

¶39

5 -

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:16858 WP No. 34135 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

(i) The writ petition is allowed ;

¶45

(ii) The respondents are directed to release the petitioner on general parole for a period of thirty (30) days, subject to the petitioner furnishing two sureties to the satisfaction of the competent authority;

¶46

(iii) The petitioner shall not indulge in any criminal activity nor involve himself in any offence of a similar nature during the period of parole;

¶47

(iv) The petitioner shall strictly comply with all conditions that may be imposed by the jail authorities and shall surrender before the prison authorities immediately upon expiry of the parole period, unless the same is extended by a competent authority in accordance with law;

¶48