Prison Authority Can't Refuse To Consider Convict's Parole Merely Because He Didn't Seek Bail Or Suspension Of Sentence: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has said that a convict who files a parole plea, cannot be deprived of consideration for parole merely because he did not move an application for suspension of sentence or bail.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj said thus while partly allowing a petition filed by Eshwaramma seeking release of her son on general parole for 90 days, sought on account of her illness.

“...it would not be required for a convict to file an application for suspension of sentence and/or bail instead of filing an application for parole.The non-filing of such an application for suspension of sentence and/or bail would not deprive the convict of consideration for parole, if such application is submitted”.

However, the petitioner had not challenged a 25.02.2025 report recommending that her son–convicted for murder and sentenced for life–be not released on parole.

Opposing the plea the Government Advocate submitted that, since the appeal is filed by the petitioner's son and is pending, they could always move an application for suspension of sentence and/or bail in the said proceedings, and hence, the question of granting parole would not arise.

The bench noted that 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 single judge referred to a coordinate bench's judgment in Arjun Lakkappa Hurakannavar Vs State of Karnataka and others, wherein was held that the pendency of a criminal appeal by the convict would not come in the way of considering an application for parole.

The high court said that it has held that even if an application for bail were to be rejected, an application for parole could still be considered.

It thereafter said,“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 noted that an application for suspension of sentence would be for suspending the entire sentence pending consideration of the criminal appeal. Whereas an application for bail would be for grant of bail, pending consideration of the criminal appeal.

The high court said that both suspension of sentence and bail "are not restricted by time", whereas an application for parole is "timebound" and is normally granted for a period of 30, 60, or 90 days, extendable if circumstances so require. After parole period expires, the convict has to report back to jail, it said. 

It observed that 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.

The bench said “Respondent No.2 is directed to release the petitioner's son, namely Siddanagouda, CTP No.13583, on general parole for a period of 60 days in order to take care of his mother's illness.”

Appearance: Advocate Sirajuddin Ahmed for Petitioner.

AGA Sharad V Magadum for Respondent

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 280

Case Title: Eshwaramma AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.101311 OF 2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order