CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Sujatha Medar W/O. Gudappa vs State Of Karnataka & Ors.

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 19 February 2025 · Citation: (2025) 02 KAR CK 0896

HON’BLE JUDGES
Krishna S Dixit, J · G Basavaraja, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Constitution Of India, 1949 — Article 226, 227
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 100527 Of 2025 (GM-POLICE)
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

15 paragraphs · 518 words

M. Nagaprasanna, J

1.

The petitioner who is the wife of the convict is at the doors of this Court seeking release of her husband on grant of parole.

2.

Heard the learned counsel Smt. Umme Salma along with Shri Sirajuddin Ahmed appearing for the petitioner and the learned AGA Shri Sharad V.Magadum appearing for the respondents.

3.

The husband of the petitioner gets embroiled in a crime, which leads to his conviction for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 302 of the IPC. The petitioner was imposed life imprisonment and now completed 8 years and 10 months of imprisonment without grant of any parole and for the first time the wife of the convict has now submitted an application before the jail authorities for release of her husband on parole which comes to be rejected. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

4.

Learned counsel Shri Sirajuddin Ahmed for the petitioner submits that the father of the convict is suffering from gangrene and produced certain medical certificates to that effect. It is his submission that the son is required to be with the father at least for a brief.

5.

Learned AGA would submit that the application of the petitioner has been rejected owing to the fact that the petitioner may not return to the gaol and has chances of escaping. Therefore, he would submit that the parole should not be granted the petitioner and he has been in prison for the last 8 years and 10 months without coming out on parole on any occasion.

6.

Notwithstanding the objection of the learned AGA owing to the conduct of the petitioner in the prison, which does not indicative of any adverse entries in the present, I deem it appropriate to grant the parole for a period of 30 days commencing from 21.02.2025, reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek extension at the hands of this Court.

7.

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

ORDER

(1) The petition is allowed in part.

(2) Mandamus issues to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and release the detenue / Gudappa (CTP No.4367) on general parole for 30 days commencing from 21.02.2025, which becomes operational from the forenoon of 21.02.2025. subject to the following conditions:

(i) The convict (CTP No.4367) 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.4367) would evade going back to the gaol, after the expiry of the period of general parole.

(ii) Respondent No.2 shall stipulate strict conditions as are usually stipulated, to ensure return of the detenue to the gaol and that he shall not commit any other offence during the period of parole.

(3) The petitioner is at liberty to seek extension of parole, which shall be considered looking at the conduct of the husband of the petitioner – convict while he is out on parole.

(4) The registry is directed to communicate the order to the prison authority for its execution.