Karnataka High Court | Parole Cannot Be Denied Merely for Not Seeking Bail or Suspension of Sentence | Prison Authority Must Consider Relief Under Karnataka Prison Manual
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad, Single Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj directed the release of a life convict on general parole for sixty days, holding that the pendency of a criminal appeal would not bar consideration of a parole application. The Court partly allowed a writ petition and ordered the prison authorities to release the convict, subject to specific conditions, to enable him to take care of his ailing mother. The order mandated weekly attendance before the jurisdictional police station and required the prison authorities to impose strict safeguards to ensure compliance. The registry was also directed to communicate the order to the concerned prison authority for immediate execution.
The matter concerned a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein the petitioner sought a direction to release her son, who was undergoing life imprisonment, on general parole for ninety days on account of her illness. The petition set out that the convict, identified as Siddanagouda, bearing convict ticket number CTP-13583, had been convicted for life imprisonment by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari, in Sessions Case No.7/2021. The conviction was recorded on 20 July 2023, for offences punishable under Sections 341 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
Following the conviction, a criminal appeal, numbered Criminal Appeal No.100176/2024, had been filed before the appellate court. During the course of the proceedings, an application for suspension of sentence and bail had also been filed but was subsequently withdrawn. In the present writ petition, the petitioner, being the convict’s mother, urged the Court to release her son on general parole for ninety days in light of her medical condition. To support this request, the petitioner submitted a medical certificate issued by the treating doctor attesting to her illness.
For the consideration of the application, a police report had been sought, which was submitted on 25 February 2025. The report recommended against the release of the convict on parole. The rejection was not formally challenged before the High Court; however, the writ petition specifically prayed for a direction to grant general parole notwithstanding the adverse police report.
The matter was contested by the learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State of Karnataka. The State submitted that since the criminal appeal filed by the convict was pending adjudication, the proper course of action would be to move an application for suspension of sentence or bail in that proceeding. It was contended that in such circumstances, the question of granting parole did not arise.
The petitioner’s counsel, however, pressed for consideration of the parole request independently of the pending appeal, drawing the Court’s attention to the petitioner’s ill health and the need for her son’s presence. The statutory provisions invoked included Sections 635, 636, 637, and 643 of Chapter XXXIV of the Karnataka Prison Manual, which lay down the framework governing the grant of parole. The Court examined the materials placed on record, including the conviction, pending appeal, medical certificate, and the police report recommending against release.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj recorded several judicial observations while considering the petition. The Court stated that “The grant of parole, which is contemplated as an exception, is granted in exigent circumstances if the need so arises, taking into consideration the circumstances contended by the convict and/or by the immediate relatives of the convict.”
The Court referred to its earlier decision dated 26 July 2023 in W.P. No.20180/2023, Arjun S/o Lakkappa Hurakannavar v. State of Karnataka and others, and noted that “the pendency of a criminal appeal by the convict would not come in the way of considering an application for parole.” The Court further noted that “even if an application for bail were to be rejected, an application for parole could still be considered.”
Addressing the contention of the State, the Court recorded: “The submission of the learned Additional Government Advocate that an application for bail or suspension of sentence should be filed, and that an application for parole cannot be considered without such filing, is not sustainable.” The Court explained that “In such cases, an application for suspension of sentence would be for suspending the entire sentence pending consideration of the criminal appeal. An application for bail would also be for grant of bail, pending consideration of the criminal appeal. Both suspension of sentence and bail are not restricted by time, whereas an application for parole is time-bound and is normally granted for a period of 30, 60, or 90 days, extendable if circumstances so require.”
The Court distinguished between parole and bail by observing: “After the expiry of the parole period, the convict is required to report back to jail and continues to undergo incarceration for the remainder of the sentence.” Therefore, the non-filing of applications for bail or suspension of sentence would not deprive a convict of parole consideration.
The Court further observed that “the authority has not considered the illness of the mother of the convict or the conditions provided under Sections 635, 636, 637, and 643 of Chapter XXXIV of the Karnataka Prison Manual.” It was noted that “It is required that whenever an order is passed rejecting a parole application, the ambit and applicability of the aforesaid sections are clearly enumerated by way of a reasoned order.”
With respect to the police report that had recommended against parole, the Court stated: “the rejection of the parole application in the police report has not taken into account the illness of the convict’s mother, i.e., the petitioner, as indicated in the present application.” Thus, the Court found that the authority had failed to assess the material circumstances and statutory provisions relevant to the case.
In conclusion, the Court passed a detailed order directing partial allowance of the writ petition. The Court held: “The writ petition is partly allowed.” The Court directed respondent number two to release the convict, Siddanagouda, CTP No.13583, on general parole for sixty days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, to enable him to attend to his mother’s illness.
The Court further directed that “the prisoner (CTP No.13583) 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.13583) would evade going back to the gaol, after the expiry of the period of general parole.”
The Court also directed that “Respondent No.2 shall stipulate strict conditions as are usually stipulated to ensure return of the detenu to the gaol and that he shall not commit any other offence during the period of parole.”
Additionally, the Court ordered that “The registry is directed to communicate the order to the prison authority for its immediate execution.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Sri. Sirajuddin Ahmed, Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri. Sharad V. Magadum, Additional Government Advocate
Case Title: Eshwaramma v. State of Karnataka & Another
Neutral Citation: 2025: KHC-D:10270
Case Number: WP No. 101311 of 2025
Bench: Justice Suraj Govindaraj
