Sunil @ H R Sunil Kumar @ H R Harish Kumar Vs… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2026)

Sunil @ H R Sunil Kumar @ H R Harish Kumar Vs… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; respondents directed to release petitioner Sunil @ Sunil Kumar @ H.R. Harish Kumar (CTP No.812) on general parole for thirty (30) days from the date of actual release, subject to conditions: (a) weekly attendance before the jurisdictional police station during the parole period, with the police to secure and commit him back to prison on failure to surrender; (b) exemplary conduct and no involvement in any criminal activity; (c) execution of appropriate bonds and sureties, with such additional conditions as prison authorities stipulate to ensure timely surrender; (d) keeping prison authorities informed of place of stay and movements. Registry directed to forthwith communicate the order to the concerned prison authorities for immediate compliance.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order/endorsement dated 13-08-2025 rejecting the petitioner's application for thirty (30) days' general parole — founded solely on an adverse report of the Superintendent of Police apprehending self-harm, without supporting material — is sustainable, and whether the petitioner is entitled to be released on general parole.

Court's answer

The adverse report of the Superintendent of Police is conspicuously bereft of any foundational material: the apprehension of suicidal tendency is neither supported by any psychological evaluation nor preceded by expert opinion of a qualified mental health professional, and rests on mere conjectures and surmises; such speculative opinions cannot be accorded determinative weight in matters concerning parole and deprivation of liberty.

Ratio / Principle

Parole is not an act of benevolence or largesse but an integral component of the reformative and rehabilitative framework embedded in the criminal justice system; denial of parole cannot be predicated on vague or unsubstantiated apprehensions and must be supported by cogent, credible and substantial material indicating a real and proximate threat to the individual or to societal interests.

Key takeaways

The material on record discloses no adverse conduct, indiscipline, misconduct or involvement in any untoward incident during the petitioner's incarceration; the unsubstantiated apprehension expressed in the police report cannot eclipse the petitioner's entitlement to be considered for parole in accordance with law.ratio¶42
Having regard to the totality of circumstances, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of general parole; balancing the right to temporary liberty against the requirement that it not be misused, the ends of justice are met by directing release on parole subject to stringent conditions.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Parole — Convict (S.302 IPC, S.C. No.125/2015, II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru; CTP No.812, Central Prison, Shivamogga) denied 30 days' general parole solely on an adverse report of the Superintendent of Police apprehending self-harm — Report conspicuously bereft of foundational material; apprehension of suicidal tendency unsupported by any psychological evaluation or expert opinion of a qualified mental health professional; rests on conjectures and surmises — Parole is not benevolence but an integral component of the reformative and rehabilitative framework; denial must rest on cogent, credible and substantial material indicating a real and proximate threat — No adverse conduct, indiscipline or misconduct during incarceration on record — Unsubstantiated police apprehension cannot eclipse entitlement to consideration for parole — Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 allowed; release on general parole for 30 days from actual release subject to stringent conditions (weekly police-station attendance; good conduct; bonds and sureties; reporting of stay and movements); Registry to communicate order to prison authorities.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:22453 WP No. 35512 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 35512 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE)

BETWEEN:

SUNIL @ H.R SUNIL KUMAR @ H.R. HARISH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS S/O RUDRESHA, R/O. HOSAPURA VILLAGE HIREKOLALE POST, CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101 NOW IN CENTRAL PRISON, HAVING CTP NO.812 SHIVAMOGGA SHIVAMOGGA - 577 222.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI D. NAGARAJA, ADV.)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU 560 001.

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

THE CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON SHIVAMOGGA - 577 222.

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE SHIVAMOGGA, SHIVAMOGGA- 577 201.

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE KARNATAKA PRISON AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES SHESHADRI ROAD, GANDHINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 009.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI K.P. YOGANNA, AGA)

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:22453 WP No. 35512 of 2025

HC-KAR

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER/ENDORSEMENT DATED 13-08-2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENTS, AS PER ANNEXURE-A.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL ORDER

The captioned petition is filed by the petitioner, a convict (CTP No.812), Central Prison, Shivamogga, seeking the following reliefs:-

"a) Issue Writ or Certiorari by quashing the impugned order/endorsement dated 13-08-2025 passed by the respondents, as per Annexure-A.

b) Consequently, directing the respondents to release the petitioner on general parole as prayed for by him.

c) Grant such other relief/s as the situation demands by moulding the prayer in the interest of justice and equity."

The petitioner, a convict prisoner undergoing sentence pursuant to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered in S.C. No.125/2015 by the Court of the II Additional

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:22453 WP No. 35512 of 2025

HC-KAR

District and Sessions Judge at Chikkamagaluru, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, has approached this Court being aggrieved by the rejection of his application seeking grant of general parole for a period of thirty (30) days. The rejection is founded solely on an adverse report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, wherein an apprehension is expressed that, if enlarged on parole, the detenue may indulge in self-harm.

This Court, upon meticulous examination of the material placed on record, finds that the adverse report submitted by the Superintendent of Police is conspicuously bereft of any foundational material. The apprehension of suicidal tendency attributed to the petitioner is neither supported by any psychological evaluation nor is it preceded by an expert opinion rendered by a qualified mental health professional. The report, thus, rests on mere conjectures and surmises, without any objective assessment or empirical basis. In matters concerning deprivation of liberty, particularly where parole is sought, such speculative opinions cannot be accorded determinative weight.

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:22453 WP No. 35512 of 2025

HC-KAR

It is trite that parole is not to be construed as an act of benevolence or largesse, but is an integral component of the reformative and rehabilitative framework embedded in the criminal justice system. The jurisprudential shift from retributive to reformative theory of punishment has been consistently recognised by constitutional Courts, wherein temporary release mechanisms such as parole are viewed as instrumental in preserving the convict’s social linkages, addressing familial exigencies, and facilitating eventual reintegration into society. Therefore, denial of parole cannot be predicated on vague or unsubstantiated apprehensions, but must be supported by cogent, credible and substantial material indicating a real and proximate threat, either to the individual or to societal interests.

In the case on hand, the material on record does not disclose any adverse conduct on the part of the petitioner during his incarceration. There are no reports of indiscipline, misconduct or involvement in any untoward incident within the prison premises. On the contrary, the absence of any adverse remark in the prison records would prima facie indicate that the

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:22453 WP No. 35512 of 2025

HC-KAR

petitioner has maintained satisfactory conduct during the period of incarceration. In such circumstances, the unsubstantiated apprehension expressed in the police report cannot be permitted to eclipse the petitioner’s entitlement to be considered for parole in accordance with law.

Having regard to the totality of circumstances, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of general parole. At the same time, this Court is conscious of the necessity to balance the petitioner’s right to temporary liberty with the overarching requirement of ensuring that such liberty is not misused. Therefore, the ends of justice would be met by directing grant of parole subject to stringent conditions, so as to adequately safeguard against any potential misuse.

ORDER

(i) The writ petition is hereby allowed.

(ii) The respondents are directed to release the petitioner, namely Sunil @ Sunil Kumar @ H. R. Harish Kumar (CTP No.812), on general parole for a period of

6 -

NC: 2026:KHC:22453 WP No. 35512 of 2025

HC-KAR

thirty (30) days from the date of his actual release, subject to the following conditions:

(a) The petitioner shall mark his attendance before the jurisdictional Police Station once every week during the parole period. In the event of failure to surrender upon expiry of the parole period, the jurisdictional police shall take necessary steps to secure the petitioner and commit him back to prison in accordance with law.

(b) The petitioner shall maintain exemplary conduct during the period of parole and shall not involve himself in any criminal activity or offence of any nature.

(c) The competent prison authorities shall insist upon execution of appropriate bonds and sureties, and may impose such additional conditions as are ordinarily stipulated to ensure the petitioner’s timely surrender.

(d) The petitioner shall keep the prison authorities informed of his place of stay and movements, as and when required, and shall strictly adhere to all conditions imposed.

7 -

NC: 2026:KHC:22453 WP No. 35512 of 2025

HC-KAR

(iii) The Registry is directed to forthwith communicate this order to the concerned prison authorities for immediate compliance.

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

DN

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5