Smt. Ayesha Siddique vs The Director General Of Police
2026 Latest Caselaw 2799 Kant

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 2799 Kant
Judgement Date : 1 April, 2026

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt. Ayesha Siddique vs The Director General Of Police on 1 April, 2026

                                                -1-
                                                           NC: 2026:KHC:17886
                                                          WP No. 8664 of 2026


                    HC-KAR



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                               DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026

                                             BEFORE
                    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
                             WRIT PETITION NO.8664 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE)
                   BETWEEN:

                        SMT.AYESHA SIDDIQUE
                        W/O NADEEM PASHA
                        AGED 36 YEARS
                        R/AT WARD NO.16
                        BEHIND MAKKA MASEEDI
                        NAGAMANGALA TOWN
                        MANDYA-571432

                        THE PETITIONER IS THE WIFE OF
                        THE CONVICT
                        PRISONER NO.1294
                        NADIM PASHA
                        WHO IS SERVING SENTENCE IN
                        MYSORE CENTRAL PRISON
Digitally signed                                                 ...PETITIONER
by CHAITHRA A
Location: HIGH     (BY SRI. PRADEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
                   AND:

                   1.   THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
                        PRISONS & CORRECTIONAL SERVICES
                        SESHADRI ROAD
                        BENGALURU-560 003

                   2.   THE CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT
                        CENTRAL PRISON
                        MYSORE-570007
                                  -2-
                                              NC: 2026:KHC:17886
                                            WP No. 8664 of 2026


 HC-KAR



3.   THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
     MANDYA DISTRICT
     MANDYA-571401

                                                   ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.P.YOGANNA, AGA)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION IN
THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO THE RESPONDENTS TO
RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON GENERAL PEROLE FOR A PERIOD
OF 90 DAYS AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM


                             ORAL ORDER

The captioned writ petition is instituted by the

petitioner, who is the ailing wife of a convicted prisoner

presently undergoing sentence at Mysore Central Prison,

seeking grant of general parole to her husband. It is the

specific case of the petitioner that, owing to her

deteriorating health condition, she is in urgent need of

medical intervention and surgery, and in that backdrop, an

application came to be submitted before the jurisdictional

NC: 2026:KHC:17886

HC-KAR

jail authorities requesting release of the convict on parole.

The said request, however, came to be rejected by the

competent authority, thereby constraining the petitioner to

invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and the learned Additional Government

Advocate appearing for the respondents. Perused the

material placed on record with utmost care.

3. The medical records produced along with the

petition reveal that the petitioner is suffering from serious

ailments and has been medically advised to undergo

surgery at the earliest point of time. The certificate issued

by the treating hospital clearly indicates not only the

urgency of the procedure but also the approximate

expenditure involved, which is estimated to be in the

range of ₹50,000/- to ₹60,000/-. The documents placed

on record, therefore, prima-facie establish both the

NC: 2026:KHC:17886

HC-KAR

medical exigency and the immediate need for familial

support.

4. It is trite that parole is not a matter of right but is

a reformative and humanitarian measure, conceived within

the framework of penological jurisprudence, to enable a

convict to maintain social and familial ties and to attend to

emergent personal exigencies. The object of parole is not

punitive, but corrective, and is rooted in the recognition

that incarceration does not sever all civil and social

relationships of a prisoner. Courts, while considering such

requests, are required to balance the competing

considerations of societal interest and individual hardship,

bearing in mind the conduct of the prisoner, the nature of

the offence, and the existence of genuine and pressing

circumstances warranting temporary release.

5. In the case on hand, the material on record

discloses that the petitioner, being the wife of the convict,

is in immediate need of surgical treatment. The

NC: 2026:KHC:17886

HC-KAR

Imprisonment Certificate produced at Annexure-A further

indicates that the conduct of the convict during

incarceration has been satisfactory and free from any

adverse remarks or untoward incidents. There is no

material placed before this Court to suggest that the

release of the convict on parole would pose any threat to

public order or would be misused. On the contrary, the

circumstances brought on record demonstrate a genuine

and compelling need for the presence of the convict to

attend to his ailing spouse.

6. It is also relevant to take note of the period of

incarceration already undergone by the convict. The

material placed on record indicates that the convict has

undergone approximately two years out of the total

sentence of five years imposed upon him. The substantial

portion of the sentence already served, coupled with his

satisfactory conduct in prison, further tilts the balance in

favour of granting parole, as it demonstrates that the

convict has been compliant with prison discipline and does

NC: 2026:KHC:17886

HC-KAR

not pose any apparent risk if temporarily released under

appropriate conditions.

7. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and

circumstances, and on a conjoint consideration of the

medical evidence, the satisfactory conduct of the convict,

and the well-settled principles governing grant of parole,

this Court is of the considered view that the present case

warrants exercise of discretion in favour of the petitioner.

Denial of parole in such circumstances would defeat the

very object of the parole system, which is intended to

alleviate human suffering in deserving cases.

8. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to

pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The writ petition is allowed in part;

(ii) The respondents are directed to release the Convict namely Nadim Pasha S/o Iliyaz Pasha (Convict Prisoner No.1294), on

NC: 2026:KHC:17886

HC-KAR

general parole for a period of thirty (30) days, subject to the furnishing of two sureties to the satisfaction of the competent Authority;

(iii) The convict shall not indulge in any criminal activity nor involve himself in any offence of a similar nature during the period of parole;

(iv) The convict shall strictly adhere to all conditions that may be imposed by the jail authorities and shall surrender before the prison authorities immediately upon expiry of the parole period, unless the same is extended by the competent authority in accordance with law;