Mr Jayaraj Bernard Vs State of Karnataka

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO GRANT 90 DAYS OF PAROLE TO HIS SON THE LIFE CONVICT PRISONER BY NAME MR.CHRISTOPHER JASWANTHRAJ @ CHRISTOPHER S/O JAYRAJ BARNARD, CONVICT PRISONER NO.10140 OF CENTRAL PRISON, PARAPPANA AGRAHARA, BANGALORE WITH A DIRECTION TO RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 TO RELEASE HIM ON PAROLE FOR THREE MONTHS FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE, ON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The captioned petition is filed seeking grant of parole to the petitioner's son for a period of ninety (90) days on medical grounds.

¶29

The petitioner’s son stands convicted for the offences punishable under Section 376 of IPC and Section 5(1) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and is presently undergoing sentence. The present petition is premised on the fundamental ground that notwithstanding conviction

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:15695 WP No. 3906 of 2026

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

and incarceration, a prisoner does not cease to be entitled

¶33

to basic human rights, particularly the right to life and health guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is the specific case of the petitioner that his son is suffering from severe coronary artery disease with approximately 80% blockage in three major coronary arteries and that the attending doctors have advised that he requires coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery, subject to stabilisation of his blood pressure and sugar levels. The prayer for parole is thus rooted in the necessity to secure timely and effective medical treatment, which forms an integral facet of the right to life.

¶34

Taking note of the serious medical condition projected and the constitutional obligation of the State to ensure adequate medical care to prisoners, this Court had directed the learned AGA to obtain instructions from the Chief Superintendent, Bengaluru Central Prison, with regard to the present health status of the petitioner’s son.

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:15695 WP No. 3906 of 2026

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

Pursuant to the said direction, the learned AGA

¶39

has placed on record a detailed medical report pertaining

¶40

to the petitioner’s son, Christopher Jaswanthraj, aged 44 years. The report indicates that upon complaints of chest pain, he was immediately referred to Jayadeva Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences and Research, Bengaluru. Upon clinical evaluation, the specialist doctors have opined that the detenue is suffering from significant coronary artery disease and have advised coronary artery bypass grafting. It is further indicated that he is required to be referred to Sri Jayadeva Institute on 12.03.2026 for further management. The report also discloses that he is presently on medication and his vitals are stable. However, the nature of the ailment and the medical advice unmistakably demonstrate that timely surgical intervention is imperative.

¶41

In the considered view of this Court, the

¶42

medical material placed on record clearly establishes that the detenue is in need of specialised cardiac treatment,

¶43

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:15695 WP No. 3906 of 2026

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

which cannot be deferred without jeopardising his life. The right of a convict to receive proper and adequate medical treatment is an inalienable component of Article 21 and cannot be curtailed merely on account of incarceration. When the State assumes custody of a prisoner, it simultaneously undertakes a duty of care to safeguard his health and well-being. Denial or delay in facilitating necessary medical treatment would amount to a violation of the prisoner’s fundamental rights. Therefore, to enable the detenue to avail appropriate medical care, this Court is of the opinion that grant of parole is both just and necessary.

¶46

In view of the foregoing and in order to uphold the constitutional mandate of preserving the life and health of the detenue, this Court is inclined to grant parole.

¶47

Accordingly, and in furtherance of the

¶48

constitutional mandate to safeguard the life and health of

¶49

6 -

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:15695 WP No. 3906 of 2026

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

a person in custody, this Court proceeds to pass the

¶53

following:

¶54

ORDER

¶55

(i) The writ petition is allowed ;

¶56

(ii) Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to release the detenue on parole for a period of ninety (90) days, subject to his furnishing two sureties to the satisfaction of the competent authority. The grant of parole is necessitated to enable the detenue to avail timely and appropriate specialised medical treatment, which is an integral facet of his right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India;

¶57

(iii) During the period of parole, the detenue shall not indulge in any criminal activities nor involve himself in any offence of similar nature and shall confine his activities strictly to pursuing medical treatment and allied requirements;

¶58

(iv) The detenue shall strictly adhere to all conditions imposed by the jail authorities and shall surrender before the prison authorities

¶59

7 -

¶60

NC: 2026:KHC:15695 WP No. 3906 of 2026

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

immediately upon expiry of the parole period, unless extended by a competent order;

¶63

(v) The concerned prison authorities shall ensure due coordination with the medical institutions to facilitate the detenue’s treatment and shall, if necessary, obtain periodic medical status reports during the parole period;

¶64

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

¶65

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶66

CA

¶67

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57

Mr Jayaraj Bernard v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Jayaraj Bernard 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Nagaraj Vs the General Manager

Sri P v Laxmisagar Vs City Municipal Council

Smt. Shakuntala K v Vs the Commissioner of Police

Sri. K. Satish Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Ramanji Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Thopinathimmappa Kalyana Mandira Seva Trust (R) Vs State of Karnataka