Sri Sukumar Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DTD. 13.10.2025 ISSUED BY THE R-2 BEARING NO. CBP/CTP-SEC/13644/2025 (PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-B) TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The petitioner who is the sister of the detenu-

¶28

Sukumar (CTP No.8107) is before this Court seeking

¶29

for the following reliefs:

¶30

i) Issue a Writ of certiorari and quash the impugned endorsement dated 13.10.2025 issued by the 2^nd Respondent bearing No. CBP/CTP-SEC/13644/2025 (produced vide ANNEXURE-B) to the writ petition; and

¶31

ii) Issue a Writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.2 and 3 to release the petitioner on General parole for a period of 90 days by considering the Karnataka Prisons and Correctional Services manual 2021 (produced vide ANNEXURE-D) to the writ petition;

¶32

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:31158 WP No. 36744 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

iii) Issue such other Writ, Order or Direction as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶35

The detenu had been convicted in

¶36

Spl.CC.No.227/2014 for offences under Section 376(2)(f), 377, 302 of IPC by the 50^th Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru and sentenced on 30.09.2015 with the highest of the sentence being imprisonment for life. The detenu has served a period of 18 years 6 months 28 days of imprisonment as on 18.10.2025 and his conduct in jail is said to be satisfactory. The petitioner having made an application for parole, the same came to be rejected on account of adverse report having received by the police.

¶37

A perusal of the police report indicates that it deals with the conviction of the detenu and does not cover any issue as regards the petitioner is at flight risk and or could cause any harm or injury to the victim/s or victim/s causing any harm to the detenu.

¶38

4 -

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:31158 WP No. 36744 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

In that view of the matter, taking into consideration

¶42

the fact that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had once earlier on 07.04.2025 in W.P.No.10315/2025 granted parole to the detenu and conduct of the detenu has been satisfactory while incarcerated, there is no particular complaint against the detenu, I pass the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

i) The Writ Petition is allowed .

¶45

ii) Respondent–Chief Superintendent, Central Prison, Bangalore, is directed to release the detenu-Sukumar (CTP No.8107) on parole for a period of 60 days commencing from 01.07.2026, subject to the following conditions:

¶46

a) The detenu-Sukumar (CTP No.8107) shall mark his attendance in the jurisdictional Police Station, weekly once throughout the period of his parole and it would be the responsibility of the jurisdictional Police to take them to gaol, in the event, the detenu would evade going back to the gaol, after the expiry of the period of parole.

¶47

5 -

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:31158 WP No. 36744 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

b) Respondent No.1- State of Karnataka shall stipulate strict conditions as are usually stipulated to ensure return of the detenu to the gaol and that he shall not commit any other offence during the period of parole.

¶51

iii) The Registry is directed to communicate the order to the prison authority for its immediate execution.

¶52

iv) The petitioner and family members of the detenu to comply with all other formalities before the date fixed for release.

¶53

Sd/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶54

KTY List No.: 2 Sl No.: 11

Sri Sukumar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Sukumar v. the 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

Smt Subhashree Saha Vs Deputy Commissioner

Sri. P. T. Subhashchandra Bose Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Arindam Deb Vs Deputy Commissioner

Mr Javeed @ Abdul Javeed @ Vaddar Javeed Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt B Prema Vs Deputy Commissioner

Mr Gowni Sridhar Goud Vs the Karnatak Real Estate