Safiya Malik

The High Court of Karnataka Single Bench of Justice B M Shyam Prasad, on February 27, granted a three-day emergency parole to a convict serving a life sentence for kidnapping and related offences, to allow him to participate in his sister's wedding ceremonies. The petition was filed by the convict's mother, who submitted that her son has a certified 77% permanent visual disability and holds a government-issued Unique Disability Identity Card, while his sister, the bride, has a locomotor disability. The Court imposed conditions requiring the convict to return to prison by March 3 and to report his presence to the jurisdictional police daily.

A writ petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the mother of a convict serving imprisonment in Central Prison, Mysuru, seeking emergency parole for her son for a period of fifteen days to enable him to attend his sister's marriage ceremony scheduled from 25 February 2026 to 1 March 2026. The convict, aged 25 years and engaged in home nursing, had been convicted for offences punishable under Section 363 and other sections of the Indian Penal Code by the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, and had been in prison for three years and five months at the time of filing.

Also Read: RTI Act Applies To Cochin International Airport Ltd As Public Authority; Supreme Court Upholds Kerala High Court Order

The convict had applied for emergency parole before the Chief Superintendent, Central Prison, Mysuru, asserting that his sister was getting married. The Chief Superintendent called for a report from the jurisdictional police, who confirmed the occurrence of the wedding at Pandavapura on 26 February 2026. The petitioner's counsel did not dispute that an appeal against the conviction was pending, but submitted that no bail application had been filed in the appeal, and that a post-wedding occasion for the newly-wed couple was scheduled on 1 March 2026. It was further contended that the appeal was being conducted by a counsel appointed by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority and that the petitioner could not reach the counsel in time. It was also stated that the petitioner's other children were physically impaired.

The Court recorded its general position on the appropriate procedural course in such matters, stating that "when an appeal is pending against a judgment of conviction, the appropriate course would be to move an application in the pending proceedings."

However, the Court noted the specific circumstances of the case and stated that "in this case where the wedding in the family is not in dispute, and because it is stated that the appeal is being conducted by a counsel who is appointed by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority and that the petitioner could not reach the learned counsel in time, this Court is persuaded to admit the petitioner to emergency parole for a limited period and on terms."

The Court thus departed from the general procedural position upon being satisfied with the factual background, including the police-verified wedding and the inability of the petitioner to access legal representation through the Karnataka Legal Services Authority channel in time.

Also Read: Accused’s Signature Not Mandatory On Test Identification Parade Record: Karnataka High Court

The Court directed: "The petition is allowed directing the third respondent to admit the petitioner's son [Sri Chetan S] to emergency parole of three days on the condition that the petitioner's son shall return to the prison on 03.03.2026 and subject to the petitioner executing surety as required under the Karnataka Prisons and Correctional Services Manual, 2021 stipulating that the petitioner's son shall mark his presence with the jurisdictional police on each day to ensure that there is no occasion of law and order situation. The petitioner is reserved with liberty to forward a copy of this order to the third respondent over email [cpmys.prisons-kar@gov.in] through a learned counsel."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Sri Aditya S K, Advocate

For the Respondents: Sri B. Ravindranath, Additional Government Advocate

Case Title: Smt. Geetha R v. The State of Karnataka and Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC:12195

Case Number: Writ Petition No. 6405 of 2026 (GM-Police)

Bench: Justice B M Shyam Prasad