Manjula vs State of Karnataka

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Orders Decided Jul 29, 2025

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1645191

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1645191
Court: Karnataka Orders High Court
Judge: B M Shyam Prasad
Decided On: Jul 29, 2025
Case Number: WP/1359/2025

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Manjula

Respondent

State of Karnataka

Excerpt

.....certificate issued by the h.k. hospital. the presence of convict is essential to provide medical care for effective treatment and recovery as well as to bare all the medical expenses. this petition, coming on for preliminary hearing, this day, order was made therein as under: coram: hon'ble mr. justice b m shyam prasadoral orderthe petitioner seeks directions to the second respondent [the chief superintendent, central prison, mysuru] to release her husband sri subramanya ctp-00682 on general parole. sri sirajuddin ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has not only filed an application, but he has also caused an email with a request and the second respondent has not taken any decision. -3- as against these submissions, ms. k.p.yashoda, the learned additional government advocate, submits on instructions that no application has been filed. in rejoinder, sri sirajuddin submits that the request is part of the email and this court must direct the second respondent to produce a copy of the application. however ms. k.p.yashoda states that the request must be made in prescribed form no.9. these rival submissions are considered, and this court is of the considered view that an enquiry on whether the application is filed or not would not enable a decision in law, but a decision on the request which is now placed as part of this petition must be considered by the second respondent. the second respondent must call for further information and verify the veracity of the information furnished and decide on the request at the earliest. in the light of the afore, the following -4-orderthe petition stands disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a certified copy of this order with the second respondent directing the second respondent to call for additional information and verify the authenticity/veracity of the information and communicate the decision on the request for general parole within four [4] weeks from the date.....

Full Judgment

-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1359 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: MANJULA W/O SUBRAMANYA CTP 00682, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT TARAGALALE, BELLAME, HASSAN, KARNATAKA - 573130. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SIRAJUDDIN AHMED.,ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA HOME DEPARTMENT, THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, Digitally VIDHANA SOUDHA, signed by BENGALURU - 560001. VANAMALA N
Location:    2.    CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT
High Court         CENTRAL PRISON,
of                 MYSORE 570007.
Karnataka …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. K.P. YASHODHA., AGA ) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-DIRECT THE R-2 TO RELEASE THE PETITIONERS HUSBAND -2- SUBRAMANYA CTP-00682 ON GENERAL PAROLE FOR A PERIOD OF 90 DAYS CITING THAT ILLNESS OF PETITIONER WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE H.K. HOSPITAL. THE PRESENCE OF CONVICT IS ESSENTIAL TO PROVIDE MEDICAL CARE FOR EFFECTIVE TREATMENT AND RECOVERY AS WELL AS TO BARE ALL THE MEDICAL EXPENSES. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner seeks directions to the second respondent [the Chief Superintendent, Central Prison, Mysuru] to release her husband Sri Subramanya CTP-00682 on General Parole. Sri Sirajuddin Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has not only filed an application, but he has also caused an email with a request and the second respondent has not taken any decision. -3- As against these submissions, Ms. K.P.Yashoda, the learned Additional Government Advocate, submits on instructions that no application has been filed. In rejoinder, Sri Sirajuddin submits that the request is part of the email and this Court must direct the second respondent to produce a copy of the application. However Ms. K.P.Yashoda states that the request must be made in prescribed Form No.9. These rival submissions are considered, and this Court is of the considered view that an enquiry on whether the application is filed or not would not enable a decision in law, but a decision on the request which is now placed as part of this petition must be considered by the second respondent. The second respondent must call for further information and verify the veracity of the information furnished and decide on the request at the earliest. In the light of the afore, the following -4-

ORDER

The petition stands disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a certified copy of this order with the second respondent directing the second respondent to call for additional information and verify the authenticity/veracity of the information and communicate the decision on the request for General Parole within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The learned counsel for the petitioner is reserved with liberty to forward a copy of this order by email to the second respondent while calling upon the learned Additional Government Advocate to also inform the second respondent.

Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE NV

Same Court & Year Karnataka Orders · 2025 Same Parties Manjula vs State of Karnataka Same Judge B M Shyam Prasad