Karnataka High Court
Mr. Annappa Mariyappa Hiremani S/O ... vs State Of Karnataka on 17 November, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15621
WP No. 108345 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 108345 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
MR. ANNAPPA MARIYAPPA HIREMANI
S/O. MARIYAPPA HIREMANI
AGED MAJOR, OCC. PRISON,
R/O. CTP NO. 11236,
CENTRAL PRISON,
BELLARY,
AS PETITIONER IS IN COSTODY,
REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER,
SMT. MARIYAVVA HIREMANI
W/O MARIYAPPA HIREMANI,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
R/AT. WATPARVI,
KUDROMATI VILLAGE,
KOPPAL DISTRICT-583237
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GIRISH M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
RAKESH S 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
HARIHAR
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
Location: High
Court of Karnataka, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
Dharwad Bench, JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS,
Dharwad
BANGALORE 560001.
2. STATE OF KARNATKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOME,
PRISON AND CINEMA,
BANGALORE-560001.
3. THE LIFE CONVICTS RELEASE COMMITTEE
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
HOME DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15621
WP No. 108345 of 2025
HC-KAR
BANGALORE 560001.
4. THE PREMATURE RELEASE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
REP. BY CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL PRISONS
CENTRAL JAIL, BELLARY DISTRICT 583103.
5. THE CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL PRISONS
CENTRAL JAIL, BELLARY DISTRICT-583103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF
MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER AS PER
ANNEXURE-E PROCEEDINGS DATED 30.06.2025 AS RESPONDENT
NO.4 COMMITTEE AS FAR AS ONLY THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED
AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT RESPONDENT NO.3 COMMITTEE TO
CONSIDER THE REQUEST MADE BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN FOR HIS
PREMATURE RELEASE IN STRICT COMPLIANCE OF THE
NOTIFICATION/GUIDELINES PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-J AND
CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT RESPONDENT NO.5 TO EXTEND REMISSION
AND TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON GENERAL PAROLE FOR A
PERIOD OF 90 DAYS WITH TIMELY EXTENSION FROM CENTRAL
PRISON, BELLARY TILL HIS REPRESENTATION SEEKING FOR HIS
PREMATURE RELEASE PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D DATED 30.06.2025
IS CONSIDERED BY THE CONCERNED AUTHORITIES.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15621
WP No. 108345 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the
following prayer:
a. "Issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
Writ or Order as per Annexure-E proceedings dated
30.06.2025 as Respondent No.4 Committee as far
as only the Petitioner is concerned and consequently
direct Respondent no.3 Committee to consider the
request made by the Petitioner herein for his
premature Release in strict compliance of the
Notification/Guidelines produced at Annexure-J and
consequently direct Respondent No.5 to extend
remission and to release the Petitioner on General
Parole for a period of 90 days with timely extension
from Central Prison, Bellary till his Representation
seeking for his Premature Release produced at
Annexure-D dated 30.06.2025 is considered by the
concerned authorities.
b. Issue any other writ or Order or Direction that
deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case
in the interest of justice and equity."
2. The petitioner - convict was convicted of offences
punishable under Sections 376, 307, 324 and 506 of the IPC in
S.C. No.79/2020. The petitioner has been in prison for the last
14 years and 2 months in terms of the imprisonment certificate.
The petitioner's case has now been recommended for premature
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15621
HC-KAR
release, and the matter is presently before the Committee
constituted to consider such premature release.
3. This court in identical circumstances, in the case of
SRI OMKARMURTHY VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DISPOSED ON 02.03.2023 [(2023) 4 KANT LJ 181] has held
as follows:
"The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction by
issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing
respondents 1, 3 and 4 to place the case of the petitioner
before the Life Convicts Premature Release Committee ('the
Committee' for short), the 2nd respondent.
2. Heard Sri.K.B.Monesh Kumar, learned counsel
appearing for petitioner and Sri.B.V.Krishna, learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing for respondents.
3. Facts adumbrated are as follows:
The petitioner gets embroiled in a crime which ends up
in his conviction in S.C.No.52/2008. On the registration of a
crime for the offences punishable under Sections 201, 302 and
376 of the IPC, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for life. By then, the petitioner was
already in custody from 23.11.2007 itself, and continued to be
in custody till the learned Sessions Judge convicted him for the
aforesaid offences on 12.10.2010.
4. The petitioner files a criminal appeal before this Court
in Crl.A.No.184/2020, wherein, this Court acquitted the
petitioner of the offence punishable under Section 376 of the
IPC and affirmed the conviction for other offences under
Sections 201 and 302 of the IPC. The petitioner continues to be
in prison and is now in prison for the last 16 years. The jail
authorities have also issued certificates favouring the petitioner
observing that his conduct has been exemplary throughout. On
all the aforesaid basis, the petitioner seeks his premature
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15621
HC-KAR
release / remission on the ground that he has been a life
convict for over 16 years and 10 months along with the
entitlement of remission before the jail authorities. What drives
the petitioner to this Court is that, the case of the petitioner is
not placed before the Committee - the second respondent by
the fourth respondent.
5. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner
Sri.K.B.Monesh Kumar would contend that the Committee is
required to meet once in two months, six times in a year and
the Committee has not met for the last six months and
therefore, the application of the petitioner has not been able to
be placed before the Committee to consider his premature
release.
6. On the other hand, the learned Additional
Government Advocate would on instructions submit that the
Committee has slated to meet in the month of March for
consideration of the cases of the petitioner and the like on their
merit. He would submit that the endeavour of the Government
would definitely be to meet frequently.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have
perused the material on record.
8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. Therefore,
they require no iteration. The issue in the lis lies in a narrow
compass with the relief sought being only to place the case of
the petitioner before the second respondent - Committee
without any loss of time with regard to the entitlement of the
petitioner for premature release in terms of law. It is not in
dispute that the petitioner has been knocking at the doors of
the Jail Authorities since 22.07.2022. The representation of the
petitioner has not been placed before the Committee, only on
the ground that the Committee has not met. It is now close to 8
months that the Committee has not met. In these
circumstances, it becomes germane to notice the orders passed
by the Apex Court from time to time concerning the release of
the life convicts. The Apex Court considering the issue
Statewise, in the case of SONADHAR VS. THE STATE OF
CHHATTISGARH1 , as in the State of Uttar Pradesh, has held
as follows:
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15621
HC-KAR
"STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (U.P.)
Uttar Pradesh was taken up as one of
the states for carrying out a pilot project. The
data shows that for the year 2021, 1372
applications were received for premature
release of the convicts and 633 applications
were allowed by the State Government, while
739 applications were rejected. 588 life
convicts have been prematurely released
while 45 applications were returned for
queries. We are cautious of the extent of
pending cases on different aspects in Uttar
Pradesh, but we express some concern about
739 applications being rejected, which is a
large number and express an apprehension
on whether the policy of 28.7.2021, which
has added a condition of minimum 60 years
before release, was an impediment.
Ms.Garima Prashad, learned AAG submits
that it was not pointed out to the Court in
W.P.(Crl) No.398 of 2021 that in view of
reservations expressed in different matters
on this aspect, the bar of 60 years stands
withdrawn. She also makes a submission
that an endeavour has been made to
streamline the process so that the
needful be done within a period 90 days
from the inception of clearance and
seven occasions have been identified
when prisoners would be released.
These are Republic day (26th January),
Women's day (8th March), World Health
Day (7th April), Labour Day (1st May),
Yoga Day (21st June), Independence
Day (15th August) and Gandhi Jayanti
(2nd October). In this behalf, we would
like to observe that insofar as the first
half of he year is concerned, there are
five occasions identified for release of
prisoners but in the second half only two
occasions have been identified. We
desire the state Government to identify
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15621
HC-KAR
at least three more significant days for
release of prisoners in the second half of
the year."
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court while noticing the issue qua the State of
Uttar Pradesh, observes that the Committee has met five times
a year in the first half of the year. The Apex Court directs that it
desires that the State Government to identify atleast three
more significant days for release of the prisoners in the second
half of the year. Therefore, the direction of the Apex Court
would be that the Committee should meet atleast 8 times in a
year. The Apex Court also notices that the progress in the State
of Karnataka is on track and while observing that, it has held as
follows:
"STATE OF KARNATAKA
The progress in Karnataka is on track. The Government
order dated 21.4.2020 was already existing and in pursuance to
this Court's orders dated 07.7.2021 and 06.10.2021, a meeting
was held by the stake holders and following orders are stated to
have been passed:-
"(a) Jail Authority was required to take
effective steps for the identification of the life
convicts eligible for premature release as on
01.01.2022,
(b) Jail Authorities were required to hold
advisory board meetings in the respective
Central Prisons by 24.1.2022,
(c) Proceedings of such advisory board
meetings were to be communicated to the
KSLSA by DIG, Prisons & Correctional Services
by 28.1.2022, and
(d) Jail authorities were required to
inform whether the prisoners required legal aid
in contesting the case or for challenging the
rejection/non consideration of their premature
release."
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15621
HC-KAR
An Advisory board meeting has thereafter been held and
the information analysis shows that out of the 119 eligible
persons, 89 prisoners were recommended while cases of 21
prisoners were deferred and cases of 9 prisoners were rejected.
The directions sought by the Committee qua Karnataka are as
under:-
"(a) It may be directed that the applications
pending with the Life Convicts Release Committee /
Karnataka State Government are processed and the
process is completed as per the SOP approved by
this Hon'ble Court, and
(b) State of Karnataka may be directed to
conduct the exercise afresh for all prisoners (except
for the ones considered in the instant round) who
will be eligible in July 2022." We accept the
suggestion and direct accordingly."
Later, the Apex Court while passing orders in the case of
KARUNA SHANKAR V. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH2 , has
held as follows:
"1 The petitioner was convicted on 2 February
1984 of an offence punishable under Section 302
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860
and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for
life in Sessions Trial No 309 of 1982 and Sessions
Trial No 592 of 1982.
2 The custody certificate issued by the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Central Jail, Fatehgarh on
5 January 2023 (which is annexed to the counter
affidavit) indicates that the petitioner has undergone
a total custody of 15 years and 14 days without
remission and 19 years and 04 months with
remission.
3 In response to the plea for premature
release, a counter affidavit has been filed by the
Superintendent of the District Jail, Ghaziabad. The
counter affidavit indicates that Form-A submitted by
the petitioner is pending before the District
Magistrate, Unnao. The application for premature
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15621
HC-KAR
release was sent to the District Magistrate, Unnao
on 2 September 2019. This was sent to the Prison
Headquarters by the District Magistrate on 25
October 2022. The Prison Headquarters, on 6
December 2022 directed the Superintendent of the
District Jail, Ghaziabad to make available the
updated details of the co-accused prisoners and a
copy of the judgment of the High Court.
4 The proposal has been sent to the Prison
Headquarters for reconsideration on 28 December,
2022 by the Senior Superintendent of the Central
Jail, Fatehgarh.
5 In view of the settled position of law
laid down by this Court the application filed by
the petitioner is required to be considered on
the basis of the policy as it stood on the date
of the conviction. If a more liberalized regime
has been brought into effect subsequently, this
should also be considered.
6 The counter affidavit which has been
filed on the record indicates that the
application has remained pending since
September 2019 for well over three years and
three months. This delay is without any reason
or justification. Since this Court has, while
taking notice of the sorry state of affairs in the
matter of the release of convicts who have
undergone long terms of imprisonment, issued
directions to the Director General of Prisons,
UP in an earlier case, we are not in these
proceedings taking up the issue which is
pending consideration.
7 In the present case we find no reason
or justification for the inordinate delay in
dealing with the application of the petitioner
for premature release.
8. We accordingly direct that within a
month from the date of this order, the Director
General of Prisons shall take all necessary
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15621
HC-KAR
steps to ensure that the application for
premature release is duly considered and
disposed of and file an affidavit of compliance
before this Court on or before 15 February
2023.
9 In the event that no such affidavit is filed,
the Registry shall re-list the petition before this
Court for directions for compliance.
10 The Writ Petition is disposed of at this
stage giving liberty to the counsel for the petitioner
to mention the Writ Petition for revival in case of
non-compliance of the direction.
11 The Director General of Prisons and all
concerned authorities are placed on notice that
this Court would be constrained to take
recourse to the coercive arm of law if other
instances indicating recalcitrance of the
authorities in dealing with such applications
are brought to the notice of the Court.
12 The Standing Counsel shall immediately
forward a copy of the present order to the Director
General of Prisons.
13 Pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of."
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court in the case of KARUNA SHANKAR
(supra) observes that the delay in release of the prisoners on
their merit i.e., of those life convicts, depicts a sorry state of
affairs of the State of Uttar Pradesh and directs that the
Committee should meet and ensure premature release of the
life convicts, within a month from the date of the order. If both
the orders passed by the Apex Court are read in tandem, what
would unmistakably emerge is that, the Committee though
would not meet 8 times a year, but should atleast meet 6 times
a year, which would mean once in two months, as the life
convicts are statutorily entitled for consideration of their
premature release in terms of the guidelines notified by the
State.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15621
HC-KAR
9. What are the guidelines to be applied for such release
is also considered by the Apex Court in the case of SHARAFAT
ALI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH , wherein, the Apex
Court has held as follows:
"6. The first principle which must be
noted, while adjudicating upon the petition is
that the application for premature release has to
be considered on the basis of the policy as it
stood on the date when the petitioner was
convicted of the offence. This principle finds
reiteration in several judgments of this Court
such as State of Haryana v. Jagdish (2010) 4
SCC 216. The most recent of them is the
decision in State of Haryana v. Raj Kumar @ Bitu
(2021) 9 SCC 292.
7. The order which has been passed by
the State government in the present case is
bereft of an application of mind to relevant
circumstances bearing on whether the petitioner
should be released prematurely. The order
contains general observations to the effect that
the release may result in resentment on the side
of the victim, but this is a general consideration
which would govern virtually all criminal offences
where a person stands convicted of a serious
offence, as in the present case under Section
302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The order
does not contain any reference whatsoever to
whether the petitioner possesses any prior
criminal history, save and except for the present
case. Similarly, the order is completely silent on
the conduct and behavior of the petitioner in jail
and after he was convicted of the offence. The
relevant considerations bearing upon whether
the release of the petitioner would pose a danger
to society have not been adverted to. There has
to be a considered application of mind to the
facts of each case.
8. In the circumstances, the order which
has been passed rejecting the application of the
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15621
HC-KAR
petitioner for premature release suffers from a
complete and patent non-application of mind.
9. For the above reasons, we allow
the petition by setting aside the impugned
order dated 30 July 2021 passed by the
Government of Uttar Pradesh. We direct
that the application of the petitioner for
premature release shall be reconsidered on
the basis of the policy as it stood on 17th
January 2005, when the petitioner was
convicted of an offence under Section 302
read with Section 34 of the IPC. The
application shall be considered afresh
without the petitioner being required to file
any fresh application for premature release.
An order shall be passed after taking into
account all relevant facts and
circumstances including those which have
been adverted to above. This exercise shall
be completed within a period of two months
from the date of this order."
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court holds that the guidelines policy that
prevailed at the time when the accused gets convicted is what
would become applicable for consideration of the application for
premature release. Therefore, there can be no ambiguity for
application of guidelines for consideration of the application for
premature release of the life convicts, on their merit, for such
release. The Apex Court considering the judgment in the case of
SHARAFAT ALI (supra) and all other judgments on the issue,
in the case of RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA V. STATE OF
UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER4 , has held as follows:
"18. We direct that:
(i)All cases for premature release of
convicts undergoing imprisonment for life
in the present batch of cases shall be
considered in terms of the policy dated 1
August 2018, as amended, subject to the
observations which are contained herein.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15621
HC-KAR
The restriction that a life convict is not
eligible for premature release until
attaining the age of sixty years, which was
introduced by the policy of 28 July 2021,
stands deleted by the amendment dated
27 May 2022. Hence, no case for
premature release shall be rejected on that
ground;
(ii)In the event that any convict is entitled to
more liberal benefits by any of the amendments
which have been brought about subsequent to
the policy dated 1 August 2018, the case for the
grant of premature release would be considered
by granting benefit in terms of more liberal
amended para/clause of the policies. All
decisions of premature release of convicts,
including those, beyond the present batch of
cases would be entitled to such a beneficial
reading of the policy;
(iii) In terms of para 4 of the policy dated 1
August 2018, no application is required to be
submitted by a convict undergoing life
imprisonment for premature release. Further,
through amendment dated 28 July 2021, para
3(i), which included convicts undergoing life
imprisonment who have not filed application for
pre-mature release in the prohibited category,
has specifically been deleted. Accordingly, all
cases of convicts undergoing life sentence in
the State of Uttar Pradesh who are eligible for
being considered for premature release in terms
of the policy, including but not confined to the
five hundred and twelve prisoners involved in
the present batch of cases, shall be considered
in terms of the procedure for premature release
stipulated in the policy;
(iv) The District Legal Services Authorities in
the State of Uttar Pradesh shall take necessary
steps in coordination with the jail authorities to
ensure that all eligible cases of prisoners who
would be entitled to premature release in terms
of the applicable policies, as noticed above,
would be duly considered and no prisoner, who
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15621
HC-KAR
is otherwise eligible for being considered, shall
be excluded from consideration.
(v) These steps to be taken by DLSAs would,
include but not be limited to, Secretaries of
DLSAs seeking status report on all prisoners
undergoing life imprisonment in the prisons
falling under their jurisdiction in terms of the
format of table prepared in Annexure - A
covering the details mentioned in para 13 of
this judgment and ensuring its submission by
relevant authorities within eight weeks of this
order as well as on an annual basis. Further,
DLSAs would utilize this status report to
monitor and engage with respective authorities
to ensure the implementation of our directions
to ensure premature release in terms of
applicable policies in all eligible cases of
convicts undergoing life sentence on a
continuous basis;
(vi) The applications for premature release
shall be considered expeditiously. Those
cases which have already been processed
and in respect of which reports have been
submitted shall be concluded and final
decisions intimated to the convict no later
than within a period of one month from the
date of this order. Cases of eligible life
convicts who are (i) above the age of
seventy years; or (ii) suffering from
terminal ailments shall be taken up on
priority and would be disposed of within a
period of two months. The Uttar Pradesh
State legal Services Authority shall, within
a period of two weeks, lay down the
priorities according to which all other
pending cases shall be disposed of. All
other cases shall, in any event, be
disposed of within a period of four months
from the date of this order; and
(vii) Where any convict undergoing life
imprisonment has already been released on bail
by the orders of this Court, the order granting
interim bail shall continue to remain in
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15621
HC-KAR
operation until the disposal of the application
for premature release."
(Emphasis supplied)
Therefore, the Apex Court in all the aforesaid orders,
have clearly directed the respective State Governments and
Director General of Prisons of those States to take necessary
steps to ensure that the applications for premature release of
life convicts to be considered and disposed, without any loss of
time. The Apex Court has also admonished that it would be
constrained to take recourse to coercive action, if recalcitrance
is displayed.
10. On a coalesce of what the Apex Court has considered
in all the afore-quoted judgments, what would unmistakably
emerge is that cases of life convicts who are entitled for
consideration of their premature release, should be considered
without any loss of time. In the case at hand, the Committee
has not met for the last 8 months which has resulted in plethora
of cases being filed before this Court seeking a mandamus only
to place those applications before the committee in the ensuing
meeting. When the meeting would ensue the State itself is not
aware, as no concrete date is being divulged for the committee
to meet. In the afore-said circumstances, I deem it appropriate
to direct the State Government to henceforth direct the 2nd
respondent/Committee to meet at least 6 times a year - once
in two months, so that those application/s are considered at the
right time on their individual merit and cases being filed only to
place the application/s before the committee would be obviated.
Till such time that the application of the petitioner would merit
consideration before the committee, he would be entitled to be
released on parole, in accordance with law, for a period that the
Authorities of the jail would prescribe or till such time, the
committee would meet and consider the case of the petitioner.
11. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is disposed.
(ii) A mandamus issues to the 1st respondent-State
to direct the Committee to meet on or before
10th April, 2023 and consider the case of the
petitioner and the like, whose cases are placed
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15621
HC-KAR
before it, for consideration of their cases for
remission/premature release.
(iii) It is made clear that the State Government shall
henceforth, direct the 2nd
respondent/Committee to meet once in two
months, in the light of the directions issued by
the Apex Court in the cases referred to in the
course of the order.
(iv) The directions shall be adhered to from the 1 st
of April, 2023.
(v) The petitioner shall be considered for his release
on general parole, in accordance with law, till
the committee meets and considers his
application for his premature release.
(vi) The Registry is directed to communicate the
order to the Additional Chief Secretary,
Department of Home Affairs, Government of
Karnataka, Bengaluru for its compliance."
4. In the light of the said circumstances, and as the
petitioner's case is under consideration before the Committee for
premature release, I deem it appropriate to grant parole to the
petitioner - convict (CTP No. 11236) for a period of 90 days,
subject to the following conditions:
5. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
(1) The Writ Petition is allowed in part.
(2) Mandamus issues to respondent No.2 to
consider the representation of the petitioner
and release the convict (CTP No.11236) - Mr.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15621
HC-KAR
Annappa Mariyappa Hiremani S/o. Mariyappa
hiremani on general parole for a period of 90
days, which would become operational from
the date of release of the convict from the jail,
subject to the following conditions:
(i) The convict (CTP No.11236) shall mark
his attendance in the jurisdictional police
station, weekly once throughout the
period of his parole and it would be the
responsibility of the jurisdictional Police to
take him to gaol, in the event, the convict
(CTP No.11236) would evade going back
to the gaol, after the expiry of the period
of general parole.
(ii) Respondent No.1 shall stipulate strict
conditions as are usually stipulated, to
ensure return of the convict to the gaol
and that he shall not commit any other
offence during the period of parole.
(3) The petitioner is at liberty to seek extension of
parole, which shall be considered looking at
the conduct of the convict while he is out on
parole.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15621
HC-KAR
(4) The registry is directed to communicate the
order to the prison authority for its execution.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
AC
CT:ANB
