Parole Leave Is A ‘Valuable Right’ Under Article 21, Police Cannot Rely On Mechanical Reports: Karnataka High Court
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad, Single Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj directed the release of a convict on general parole for 60 days. The Court held that parole applications must be evaluated in accordance with Chapter XXXIV of the Karnataka Prison Manual and not be rejected mechanically on the basis of standardised police reports. The Bench instructed the Director General of Police to ensure that concerned officers are properly trained to apply the relevant provisions of the Prison Manual while considering parole.
The petitioner, a 62-year-old mother of a convicted prisoner, approached the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. She sought a writ of mandamus directing the prison authorities to release her son, Saddam, CTP No. 4426, on general parole for 90 days citing her medical condition.
Saddam had been convicted by the District and Sessions Judge, Bidar, in Sessions Case No. 324 of 2017 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He was incarcerated from 17 February 2017 onwards, including his period as an undertrial prisoner. As of 3 March 2024, he had completed eight years and fourteen days of imprisonment, inclusive of six years, one month, and fourteen days as an undertrial.
The petitioner submitted an application to the prison authorities requesting release of her son on parole. The prison authorities, after verification, recommended the release. However, the application was not acted upon because of an adverse police report. The rejection, as recorded in the order, was based on the contents of that report rather than on the merits of the application.
The State, represented by the Additional Government Advocate, opposed the petition. It was submitted that a criminal appeal, Criminal Appeal No. 200218 of 2023, was pending. In that appeal, the convict had filed an application for suspension of sentence and bail, which the State had objected to. Orders on that application were still pending. On this ground, along with the police report, parole was not granted.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the denial of parole was unjustified, given that the prison authorities themselves had recommended the release and that the denial was only due to a mechanical police report. The respondent-State maintained its stand that parole could not be granted when a bail application in appeal was pending.
The matter was therefore placed before the High Court for determination of whether parole could be considered independently of pending appeals, and whether the rejection based solely on the police report was valid under the law.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj recorded several findings while examining the matter. The Court stated: “A perusal of the police report indicates that it is a mechanical report which has been submitted by the police without consideration of Chapter XXXIV of Sections 635, 636, 637, 638 and 644 of the Karnataka Prison Manual.”
The Court further noted: “A perfunctory rejection has been made in terms of the police report, without considering the actual facts. This Court is coming across several of these reports, which are identically worded, without any application of the mind.”
On the right to parole, the Court observed: “The grant of parole is a valuable right of a convict, which would also be a right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and as such, it would be required for the concerned authorities to apply their mind in a proper manner and pass a reasoned order on a case to case basis, rather than reproducing the same grounds in all the reports which are submitted.”
The Court also recorded broader concerns regarding the prison system: “Goals are overcrowded by undertrial prisoners as well as convicts. One of the objectives of punishment is reformation; such reformation cannot be achieved if the convict is distanced from society. On release, the convict would also have to be integrated into society.”
Accordingly, the Court directed: “The Director General of Police is requested to look into the matter and instruct his officers appropriately, if necessary, to provide training to all the concerned officers as regards Chapter XXXIV of the Karnataka Prison Manual.”
On the issue of pendency of a suspension/bail application in appeal, the Court stated: “That application stands on a different footing and a different ground than an application for parole inasmuch as in the event of an application for suspension/bail is allowed, the convict/prisoner would be released during the pendency of the consideration of the appeal, whereas an application for parole is for a limited period, which is required to be considered in terms of Chapter XXXIV of the Karnataka Prison Manual.”
Thus, the Court distinguished between bail pending appeal and parole, and held that the pendency of a bail application was not a valid ground to reject parole.
In the operative portion, the Court partly allowed the writ petition. It directed: “Respondent No.2 is directed to release the petitioner’s son, namely Saddam, CTP No.4426, on general parole for a period of 60 days in order to take care of his mother’s illness from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, subject to the following conditions.”
The Court specified the conditions of parole. It ordered: “The prisoner (CTP No.4426) 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.4426) would evade going back to the gaol, after the expiry of the period of general parole.”
The Court further directed: “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 then period of parole.”
The registry was instructed to ensure communication of the order: “The registry is directed to communicate the order to the prison authority for its immediate execution.”
The Court also granted liberty for future applications: “Liberty is granted to the petitioner to file further application for extension of parole if he satisfies the requirements in relation thereto.”
Thus, while the petitioner had initially sought 90 days, the Court limited the parole to 60 days with explicit safeguards and reporting obligations.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Sri. Sirajuddin Ahmed, Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri. Sharad V. Magadum, Additional Government Advocate
Case Title: Chotti Bee v. State of Karnataka and Another
Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC-D:10272
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 101912 of 2025 (GM-Police)
Bench: Justice Suraj Govindaraj
