Full Judgment
-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.37817/2025 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: NAGINA W/O AJEEZ KHAN @ AZEEZ CTP-13537 AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O.GAFFAR KHAN MOHALLA, SRINIVASPUR, KOLAR KARNATAKA - 563 135 …PETITIONER (BY SRI.SIRAJUDDIN AHMED., ADVOCATE) AND: Digitally 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA signed by REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VANAMALA N DEPARTMENT OF HOME, Location: VIDHANA SOUDHA, HIGH COURT OF BENGALURU-560001 KARNATAKA
2. THE CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON, PARAPPANA AGRAHARA, BENGALURU-560100
3. SHO SRINIVASAPURA P.S (JURISDICTION P.S) -2- KARNATAKA - 563135 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B.RAVINDRANATH, AGA) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R2 TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER'S HUSBAND AZEEZ KHAN @ SADHAM HUSSEN @ AJEEZ KHAN CTP -13537 ON GENERAL PAROLE FOR A PERIOD OF 90 DAYS IIN ORDER TO SAFEGUAED HIMSELF FROM THE ADVERSE EFFECTS OF PROLONGED CONFINEMENT AND TO PERFORM CONJUGAL OBLIGATION AND ALSO SHE HAS 4 CHILDREN WHO ARE IN NEED OF FATHER'S LOVE AND CARE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD -3-
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner seeks general parole for her husband who is sentenced to life upon conviction for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [IPC] in SC No.49 of 2019 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapur. The application for parole is rejected in the light of a report filed by the Police Inspector, Srinivasapura Police Station, Srinivasapura. The Police Inspector, Srinivasapura Police Station has filed a report stating that [a] the petitioner's mother- in-law is not keeping well [b] the petitioner's in-laws are not willing to stand surety and [c] if the petitioner's husband is admitted to parole there would be every possibility of him interfering with the law and order. Sri Sirajuddin Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner, as the wife of the convict, seeks parole for conjugal rights and -4- the request could not have been rejected only because her in-laws are not willing to offer requisite surety. However, the learned counsel cannot dispute that the application for parole should be considered by the Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services, and this Court is of the view that even in the present case, notwithstanding the impugned endorsement, the Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services must consider the request of admitting the petitioner's husband to parole. The decision must be in the backdrop of the object sought to be achieved in admitting a convict to parole. Hence the following.
ORDER
The petition stands disposed of reserving liberty to the learned counsel for the
petitioner to file a certified copy of this order
with the third respondent over email [[email protected]] calling upon the third respondent to forward the records, -5- including a certified copy of this order, within a week from the date of receipt thereof to the office of the Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services, who shall within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of the documents, communicate the decision to the petitioner. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE NV List No.: 3 Sl No.: 52