Karnataka High Court

Sri Venkatesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 December, 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

                         BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

         WRIT PETITION No.17011/2023 (GM-POLICE)

BETWEEN:

SRI VENKATESH,
S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
PRESENTLY LODGED AT OPEN
AIR JAIL DEVANAHALLI (CT NO.1007).
                                             ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI VINAY KUTTAPPA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
       VIDHANA SOUDHA
       BENGALURU-560001.

2.     THE SUPERINTENDENT
       OPEN AIR JAIL,
       DEVANAHALLI-562110.

3.     THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
       CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT,
       KARNATAKA-562101.
                                          ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED   ORDER    DATED   17.06.2023  BEARING   NO.
                                     2


DCRB/CBP/PAROLE/01/2023 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A AND
CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE R2 TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER
ON PAROLE LEAVE.

     THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 15.12.2023, THIS DAY THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

                              ORDER

This petition seeking to quash impugned

order/recommendation dated 17.06.2023 by respondent

No.3 at Annexure - A dated 17.06.2023.

2. Brief facts:

The petitioner has been convicted in S.C.

No.88/2013 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge,

Chikkaballapur and sentenced to imprisonment for life for

the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 of

the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. The petitioner aggrieved by the judgment

dated 16.01.2015 passed in S.C. No.88/2013 preferred the

Criminal Appeal No.285/2015 before this Court. The

Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated

02.06.2021, dismissed the appeal confirming the order of

conviction.

4. The petitioner was granted parole for thirty

days by order dated 28.10.2021. The petitioner filed

another application seeking parole at Annexure - J dated

26.05.2023 on the ground to repair his residential house.

In a report by respondent No.3 to the respondent No.2

dated 17.06.2023 recommended to refuse the parole on

various grounds.

5. Sri. Vinay Kuttappa, learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner submits that though parole application

was filed to repair the residential house, the petitioner's

wife has given birth to male child on 17.08.2022; he has

no opportunity to share his love and affection to the child.

Hence, on humanitarian grounds, the parole ought to have

been granted. The petitioner was released on parole by

order dated 28.10.2021, the petitioner complied with the

conditions and surrendered to the Jail Authorities after the

period of parole. Conduct of the petitioner is good. On the

above grounds, prays to release the petitioner on parole

for a period of thirty days.

6. Smt. Spoorthy Hegde N., learned High Court

Government Pleader appearing for the respondents

submits that no case is made out to exercise discretionary

power by the respondents to extend the parole. Further

submits that the report given by respondent No.3 is

considered, it is not in the interest of the villagers to

release the petitioner on parole. On the above

submissions, requests for dismissal of the writ petition.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and

perused the records.

8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was

released on parole for thirty days by release order dated

28.10.2021 in exercise of power under Section 56 of the

Karnataka Prisons Act, 1963. It is not the case of the

respondents that

(i) The petitioner has violated the conditions of earlier parole.

(ii) No complaint by the Prison Authorities on the conduct and behavior of the petitioner to refuse parole.

9. Clause 635 and 636 of the Karnataka Prisons

and Correctional Services Manual, 2021 (hereinafter

referred to as 'the Manual' for short) provides for release

of a prison on parole. Clause 635 and 636 reads as under:

635. Statutory Provision;

"i. Section 55 of the Karnataka Prisons Act, 963 and Rule 191 of the Karnataka Prisons Rules, 1974 confers on State Government or any authority empowered by it the power to release prisoners temporarily;

ii. General Parole and Emergency Parole to inmates are progressive measures of correctional services. The release of a prisoner on leave not only saves him from the evils of incarceration but also enables him to maintain social relations with his family and the community.

iii. It also helps him to maintain and develop a sense of self-confidence. Continued contacts with family and the community sustain in him a hope for life.

iv. The provisions for grant of parole should be liberalized to help a prisoner to maintain a harmonious relationship with his family. The privilege of parole should, of course, be allowed to selective prisoners on the basis of well- defined norms of eligibility;

v. General and Emergency Parole cannot be claimed as a matter of right but it is a concession granted to the convicted prisoner;

vi. Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services reserves the right to debar or withdraw any prisoner or category of prisoners from the concession of any parole.

vii. The expense of journey to and from his place of stay for general parole or emergency parole shall be borne by the prisoner concerned;

viii. The period spent on general parole or emergency parole shall not count as sentence;

ix. The prisoner will be liable and recalled immediately to prison in case he violates any of the conditions by the Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services; x. A register and separate file shall be maintained in Prison;

xi. A person can give surety for two or more prisoners."

636. Objectives of Parole;

"i. To enable the inmate to maintain continuity with his family life and deal with family matters and settlement of life after release;

ii. To enable him to maintain and develop his self-confidence, constructive hope and active interest in life;

iii. Agricultural operations like sowing and harvesting;

iv. To make arrangements for admission of children in school/college/technical education;

v. Construction and repair of home; ........"

10. Clause 635 of the Manual provides for release

of the prisoner on parole to enable him to maintain social

relations with his family and the community, to maintain

harmonious relationship with his family, to enable the

prisoner to maintain continuity with his family life and deal

with family matters and settlement of life after release.

11. The reasons and objections provided in clause

635 and 636 to the Manual if considered, refusal of parole

to provide the petitioner an opportunity to meet his wife

and new-born child which he has no occasion to see the

child from its birth would deprive him to maintain social

relations with his family and deal with family matters.

12. Respondent No.3 has recommended not to

release the petitioner on parole on the basis of the

enquiries said to have been conducted with the petitioner's

villagers. The reasons assigned in the report are vague

and without any basis. The report would not indicate who

are the persons objected his parole and under what

circumstances, the peace and harmony of the village would

be disturbed on release of the petitioner on parole. Hence,

report at Annexure - A is without any basis and application

of mind.

13. The respondent has not placed any material or

even sought to contend that the earlier release by order

dated 28.10.2021, the petitioner has violated the terms

and conditions of the parole.

14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court

is of the view that Annexure - A is without any basis and is

to be quashed and writ petition is to succeed. Hence, the

following:

ORDER

1. Writ petition is allowed.

2. Annexure - A passed by respondent No.3 is hereby quashed.

3. Respondent No.2 is directed to release the petitioner on general parole for a period of thirty days subject to the condition as has

been imposed in the earlier order of parole order dated 28.10.2021.