Mariya Deepa P Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:19937 WP No. 4469 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 4469 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MARIYA DEEPA .P W/O ANANDA @ KUPPA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/O NO 169, 2^ND CROSS MUNIYAPPA LAYOUT GARVEBHAVIPALYA BANGALORE SOUTH BANGALORE, KARNATAKA-560068.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. UMME SALMA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

THE CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON BENGALURU - 560 100.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA)

¶17

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER'S HUSBAND

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:19937 WP No. 4469 of 2026

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

CONVICT NAMELY ANANDA @ KUPPA S/O SUNDARESHA (CTP 11209) ON GENERAL PAROLE FOR THE PERIOD OF 90 DAYS.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioner who is the wife of the convict namely Ananda @ Kuppa S/o. Sundaresha (CTP-11209) has filed the captioned petition seeking general parole on the ground that convict's parents are seriously ill.

¶26

Based on the report tendered by the Superintendent of Police dated 23.12.2025, the Chief Superintendent of Police has rejected the application tendered by the detenue seeking parole. Aggrieved by the same, the captioned petition is filed.

¶27

Today, the medical documents are produced

¶28

along with a memo by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:19937 WP No. 4469 of 2026

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

On perusal of the records, the petitioner's

¶33

husband namely Ananda, who is now lodged in Bengaluru Central Prison and has undergone sentence for life pursuant to the judgment dated 20.04.2019 passed in S.C.No.891/2017 for the offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC and has undergone incarceration for a period of eight years.

¶34

At the outset, it requires to be noticed that parole is not a matter of charity, but a facet of the reformative theory of punishment, which has now gained constitutional recognition as part of humane administration of criminal justice. The object of parole is to enable a convict to maintain social ties, to attend to pressing personal and family exigencies, and to facilitate reintegration into society. The denial of parole, therefore, cannot be mechanical or founded on vague apprehensions,

¶35

but must be based on cogent and substantial material demonstrating real and imminent threat to public order or safety.

¶36

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:19937 WP No. 4469 of 2026

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

The doctrine governing parole has been

¶39

consistently evolved by constitutional Courts to balance two competing interests on the one hand, the societal interest in ensuring safety and order, and on the other, the convict’s right to dignity and reformation under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Parole, thus, serves as a controlled and conditional liberty, which does not interrupt the sentence but merely suspends its execution temporarily.

¶40

This Court is of the view that appropriate conditions can always be imposed to mitigate any perceived risk, including restricting the movement of the detenue, directing him to report to the jurisdictional police at regular intervals, and prohibiting any contact with the victim or his family. When such safeguards are available, outright denial of parole would be disproportionate and contrary to the principles governing grant of parole.

¶41

5 -

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:19937 WP No. 4469 of 2026

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

It is also to be emphasized that parole being a

¶45

reformative measure, denial thereof in the absence of compelling reasons would defeat the very purpose of correctional jurisprudence. The continued incarceration of

¶46

a prisoner without affording him even a temporary release, despite good conduct, would run counter to the constitutional mandate of fair, just and reasonable procedure.

¶47

In the totality of the circumstances, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of parole and that the apprehensions expressed can be adequately addressed by imposing stringent conditions.

¶48

Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶49

ORDER

¶50

(i) The writ petition is allowed ;

¶51

(ii) The respondents are directed to release the convictAnanda @ Kuppa S/o. Sundaresha(CTP-

¶52

6 -

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:19937 WP No. 4469 of 2026

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

11209), on general parole for a period of 90 (ninety) days from the date of his release;

¶56

(iii) The release shall be subject to the detenue furnishing an undertaking that he shall not indulge in any unlawful activities during the period of parole and shall maintain good conduct;

¶57

(iv) The respondents shall impose stringent conditions, including but not limited to: requiring the detenue to report before the jurisdictional police at periodic intervals, restricting his movement, and ensuring that he does not, directly or indirectly, make any contact with the victim or his family members; (v) The detenue shall surrender before the jurisdictional prison authorities immediately upon expiry of the parole period, failing which appropriate action shall be taken in accordance with law;

¶58

(vi) Any violation of the conditions imposed shall entail immediate cancellation of parole;

¶59

(vii) Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to seek extension of parole, if permissible in law;

¶60

7 -

¶61

NC: 2026:KHC:19937 WP No. 4469 of 2026

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

(viii) The Registry is directed to communicate this order forthwith to the concerned prison authorities, including by electronic mode, for immediate compliance.

¶64

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶65

ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 65

Mariya Deepa P v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mariya Deepa P 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Channaveeregowda Vs the State of Karnataka

K. M. Venkatesh Vs State of Karnataka

Sriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt Sharadamma

Sri G Madan Mohan Reddy Vs Sri N Praveen Kumar

M B Rajiv Vs State of Karnataka

Aryadhan Financial Solutions Private Limited Vs State of Karnataka