[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Mariya Deepa P vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:19937
WP No. 4469 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 4469 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
1. MARIYA DEEPA .P
W/O ANANDA @ KUPPA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
R/O NO 169, 2ND CROSS
MUNIYAPPA LAYOUT
GARVEBHAVIPALYA BANGALORE SOUTH
BANGALORE, KARNATAKA-560068.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. UMME SALMA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
HOME DEPARTMENT
Digitally signed by
THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
NAGARAJA B M VIDHANA SOUDHA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF BENGALURU-560 001.
KARNATAKA
2. THE CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT
CENTRAL PRISON
BENGALURU - 560 100.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER'S HUSBAND
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:19937
WP No. 4469 of 2026
HC-KAR
CONVICT NAMELY ANANDA @ KUPPA S/O SUNDARESHA (CTP
11209) ON GENERAL PAROLE FOR THE PERIOD OF 90 DAYS.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner who is the wife of the convict namely
Ananda @ Kuppa S/o. Sundaresha (CTP-11209) has filed
the captioned petition seeking general parole on the
ground that convict's parents are seriously ill.
2. Based on the report tendered by the
Superintendent of Police dated 23.12.2025, the Chief
Superintendent of Police has rejected the application
tendered by the detenue seeking parole. Aggrieved by the
same, the captioned petition is filed.
3. Today, the medical documents are produced
along with a memo by the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
NC: 2026:KHC:19937
HC-KAR
4. On perusal of the records, the petitioner's
husband namely Ananda, who is now lodged in Bengaluru
Central Prison and has undergone sentence for life
pursuant to the judgment dated 20.04.2019 passed in
S.C.No.891/2017 for the offences punishable under
Section 302 of IPC and has undergone incarceration for a
period of eight years.
5. At the outset, it requires to be noticed that
parole is not a matter of charity, but a facet of the
reformative theory of punishment, which has now gained
constitutional recognition as part of humane
administration of criminal justice. The object of parole is to
enable a convict to maintain social ties, to attend to
pressing personal and family exigencies, and to facilitate
reintegration into society. The denial of parole, therefore,
cannot be mechanical or founded on vague apprehensions,
but must be based on cogent and substantial material
demonstrating real and imminent threat to public order or
safety.
NC: 2026:KHC:19937
HC-KAR
6. The doctrine governing parole has been
consistently evolved by constitutional Courts to balance
two competing interests on the one hand, the societal
interest in ensuring safety and order, and on the other,
the convict's right to dignity and reformation under Article
21 of the Constitution of India. Parole, thus, serves as a
controlled and conditional liberty, which does not interrupt
the sentence but merely suspends its execution
temporarily.
7. This Court is of the view that appropriate
conditions can always be imposed to mitigate any
perceived risk, including restricting the movement of the
detenue, directing him to report to the jurisdictional police
at regular intervals, and prohibiting any contact with the
victim or his family. When such safeguards are available,
outright denial of parole would be disproportionate and
contrary to the principles governing grant of parole.
NC: 2026:KHC:19937
HC-KAR
8. It is also to be emphasized that parole being a
reformative measure, denial thereof in the absence of
compelling reasons would defeat the very purpose of
correctional jurisprudence. The continued incarceration of
a prisoner without affording him even a temporary
release, despite good conduct, would run counter to the
constitutional mandate of fair, just and reasonable
procedure.
9. In the totality of the circumstances, this Court
is satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for
grant of parole and that the apprehensions expressed can
be adequately addressed by imposing stringent conditions.
10. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed;
(ii) The respondents are directed to release
the convictAnanda @ Kuppa S/o. Sundaresha(CTP-
NC: 2026:KHC:19937
HC-KAR
11209), on general parole for a period of 90
(ninety) days from the date of his release;
(iii) The release shall be subject to the
detenue furnishing an undertaking that he shall
not indulge in any unlawful activities during the
period of parole and shall maintain good conduct;
(iv) The respondents shall impose stringent
conditions, including but not limited to: requiring
the detenue to report before the jurisdictional
police at periodic intervals, restricting his
movement, and ensuring that he does not, directly
or indirectly, make any contact with the victim or
his family members;
(v) The detenue shall surrender before the
jurisdictional prison authorities immediately upon
expiry of the parole period, failing which
appropriate action shall be taken in accordance
with law;
(vi) Any violation of the conditions imposed
shall entail immediate cancellation of parole;
(vii) Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to
seek extension of parole, if permissible in law;
NC: 2026:KHC:19937
HC-KAR
(viii) The Registry is directed to
communicate this order forthwith to the concerned
prison authorities, including by electronic mode,
for immediate compliance.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
ALB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 65
