The Karnataka High Court allowed a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the police report dated 12.07.2023 issued by the R-2. The Court observed that the application cannot be rejected on the ground that there is a public opinion that if the petitioner is released on parole, it would cause a disturbance to the peace and tranquillity of the public.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner, who is undergoing sentence on an order of conviction passed by the Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge to undergo imprisonment for life for the offense punishable under Sections 302, 307, 341, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, is before this Court aggrieved by the impugned order dated 12.07.2023 passed by respondent No.2 and the subsequent endorsement dated 17.07.2023, whereby the application filed by the petitioner seeking general parole for a period of thirty days has been rejected at the hands of respondent No.3―The Chief Superintendent of Central Prison.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that in terms of the provisions contained in the Karnataka Prisons and Correctional Services Manual-2021, the Petitioner is entitled to seek parole subject to the conditions imposed therein. He submitted that in the impugned order the only ground on which the application has been rejected is that on verification from the neighbors of the residents of the petitioner, no good opinion is found and it is apprehended that if the petitioner is granted parole, it would disturb the peace and tranquillity of the general public. Learned Counsel argued that this reasoning given by respondent No.3, rejecting the application would be contrary to the provisions contained in the Manual.
The Court observed that the reason for rejecting the application made by the petitioner cannot be sustained. Respondent No.3- Competent Authority, is required to consider the application having regard to the provisions contained in the Karnataka Prisons and Correctional Services Manual, 2021. The application cannot be rejected on the ground that there is a public opinion that if the petitioner is released on parole, it would cause a disturbance of the peace and tranquillity of the public.
The Court noted that the petitioner has been in incarceration for more than 10 years now and on the previous occasion when the petitioner was released on a general parole for a period of three months, there has been no such incident reported against the petitioner.
The decision of the Court:
The Karnataka High Court, allowing the petition, held that the impugned endorsement dated 17.07.2023 issued by respondent No.3―The Chief Superintendent is hereby quashed and set aside.
Case Title: Vasudeva @ Vasu v The State of Karnataka & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice R Devdas
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO. 18499 OF 2023 (GM-POLICE)
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. K Ravishankar
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Manjunath K
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :