Karnataka High Court
Fathima vs State Of Karnataka on 18 November, 2022
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
WP No. 16273 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 16273 OF 2022 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
1. FATHIMA,
W/O LATE PYAREJAN,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
R/AT 44, 7th CROSS, S.R. NAGAR
ADUGODI,
BENGALURU - 560 030.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ARVIND N., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.MOHAN KUMAR D., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY THE SECRETARY OF
HOME DEPARTMENT,
Digitally signed by VIDHANA SOUDHA,
PADMAVATHI B K
Location: HIGH
BENGALURU - 560 001.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
CENTRAL PRISON,
PARAPANA AGRAHARA,
ELECTRONIC CITY POST,
BENGALURU - 560 100.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M.VINOD KUMAR, AGA)
-2-
WP No. 16273 of 2022
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT SEEKING
TO QUASH THE REJECTED PAROLE ENDORSEMENT
NO.BCP/13/03/2020-21 DATED 8.9.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE - C
PASSED BY R-2 AND TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION BY
RELEASING THE DETENUE ON PAROLE FOR A PERIOD OF 90
DAYS AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the
order dated 08.09.2020, by which, the respondents- Authority
turns down the application submitted by her for release of her
son on parole.
2. Heard Sri Arvind N., on behalf of Sri Mohan Kumar
D., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri M.Vinod
Kumar, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for
the respondents.
3. Sans details, facts in brief are as follows;
The petitioner is the mother of the detenue who gets
convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial Court
for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read
with Section 34 of the IPC and the same was confirmed by this
WP No. 16273 of 2022
Court. The detenue is in judicial custody for the past six years.
The detenue had submitted an application before respondent
No.2 seeking emergency parole for a period of 15 days on the
ground that her mother is suffering from serious health issues.
The said application was rejected on the basis of the police
verification report submitted by the Adugodi police station,
wherein it is cited that the prisoner surety address does not
match and the prisoner may create law and order issue in the
locality. The order of rejection reads as follows;
"ENDORSEMENT
Sub:- Regarding Emergency Parole of Convict Prisoner
No.11646 Shri.Saadiq Ahmed S/o. Pyaare Jaan- reg
Ref:- 1. Your Emergency Parole application dated:
18.08.2020.
2. Adugodi PS, Bangalore No.180/20, dated:
27.08.2020
With reference to the above subject, your
application regarding sanction of Emergency parole citing
your mother's illness at ref (1) was sent for Police
verfication on 21.08.2020. The same has been rejected
by Adugodi PS, Bangalore at ref(2) citing that prisoner
surety address does not match and prisoner may create
law and order issue in the locality. Hence, your
application for Emergecy Parole is rejected hereby."
WP No. 16273 of 2022
4. In the light of the submission of the mother of the
convict that she has serious health issues and wants to look at
her son, I deem it appropriate to allow the petition by directing
release of the convict on parole for a period of seven days.
5. In identical circumstances this Court has, in Writ
Petition No.18978/2021 disposed on 26.10.2021 held as
follows:
"3. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court
is inclined to grant a restrictive & conditional indulgence
in the matter as under and for the following reasons:
a) Petitioner in all fairness has disclosed all the
material particulars of the cases in which her husband has
been convicted & sentenced; presently he has been
serving sentence in the gaol for purging the guilt since
last more than two decades ie., since 02.03.1999, of
course with some parole/furlough; he had violated some
parole condition earlier, may be true; however, one
cannot forget that every saint had a past and every sinner
has a future; the fact that a person is convicted and put
behind the bars, does not render him a destitute of all
liberty & dignity; in matters like this humanistic approach
needs to be adopted qua the convicts; a convict has to
keep in contact with the civil society although
sporadically, so that his societal roots, do not dry up when
he languishes in the jail; otherwise, when he returns from
the prison after completing the term of sentence, he may
be a total stranger and life may prove hard to him; this is
not a happy thing to happen in a Welfare State.
(b) The provisions of parole/furlough are
structured on humanistic grounds for the reprieve of
those lodged in gaols for long; the main purpose of
releasing a serving convict on parole is to afford to him
WP No. 16273 of 2022
an opportunity to solve his personal & family problems
and to enable him to maintain his links with the civil
society; there may be cases of health grounds too; the
marriage of convict's younger daughter Chi.S.Monish is
scheduled to be performed on 7th & 8th day of November,
2021 at Bastipura, Kollegal; petitioner has produced the
Marriage Invitation Card at Annexure-L; ordinarily every
Hindu Marriage involves certain rituals such as 'Vivaah
Homa' & 'Kanyadaan' that are done with the participation
of the parents; even otherwise, when a young daughter is
getting married, the presence of her father, is desirable,
consistent with the humanitarian considerations which
inhere in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
(c) It was Oscar Wilde in a stanza of his poem
"The Ballard of Reading Gaol" who lamented about the
prison life as under:
" This too I know .... And wise it were
If each could know the same ...
That every prison that men build
Is built with bricks of shame,
And bound with bars lest Christ should see
How men their brothers maim".
"Compassion wherever possible and cruelty only
where inevitable, is the art of correctional confinement",
said the Apex Court in CHARLES SOBRAJ VS THE
SUPTD., CENTRAL JAIL, TIHAR, 1978 AIR 1514; after
all, the standard of civilization is measured by looking to
how the State and Civil Society treat the criminals. The
sublime feelings of the spouse & children permeate the
prison walls and reach out to the convict, however strong
& unkindly they are built; therefore, this court has to
facilitate the presence & participation of the petitioner in
the ensuing marriage ceremony; an otherwise stand of
the court, runs the risk of being branded as 'inhuman' by
the right thinking sections of the society, to say the least.
(d) The vehement contention of learned State
Counsel that the petitioner's husband has some
blameworthy track record and he may flee away from the
clutches of law, do not much impress this court; it is not
that, the convict is awarded a capital punishment and
therefore he may take a chance to run away from the
WP No. 16273 of 2022
gallows; What George A. Ellis in his book "Inside
Folsom Prison" said about the nature of convicts is
quoted by the Apex Court in MARU RAM vs. UNION OF
INDIA, (1981) 1 SCR 1196 very pertinently:
"Contrary to popular opinion, all convicts are not
rock-hard individuals lacking sufficient emotional balance.
They are people, with fears and aspirations like everyone
else. Generally, they don't want to fight with or kill their
neighbor any more than the man on the street. They
want to live in peace and return to it their loved ones as
soon as possible. They are not a different breed of
human being or a distinct type of mentality. They are
persons who have made mistakes. This point is made not
to solicit pity but to bring attention to the fact that any
individual could be caught in a similar web and find
himself inside a pit such as Folsom Prison".
Suitable & stringent conditions can be stipulated by
the prison authorities themselves; that would assuage
this apprehension.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition
succeeds in part; the respondents are directed to consider
the subject representation and release the convict on
parole/furlough from the forenoon of 01.11.2021 till the
afternoon of 15.11.2021; the respondents shall stipulate
strict conditions as are usually stipulated to ensure the
return of convict to the gaol and that he shall not commit
any other offence."
In the light of the facts obtaining in the case at hand and
the judgment rendered by the co-ordinate Bench, I deem it
appropriate to follow the same and permit the detenue to be
released on parole. Therefore, the following:
WP No. 16273 of 2022
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is allowed in part.
(ii) Order dated 08.09.2020 passed by 2nd respondent
rejecting the application for parole stands quashed.
(iii) The respondents are directed to consider the
representation of the detenue and release him on parole
from the forenoon of 28.11.2022 till the afternoon of
07.12.2022.
(iv) The respondents shall stipulate strict conditions as
are usually stipulated, to ensure return of the detenue to
the gaol and that he shall not commit any other offence.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PN
