JAYALAKSHMI Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's husband [Mr. Puttaraju] is convicted for the offences punishable under Sec. 376 of IPC and Ss. 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [for short, 'the POCSO Act'], and he is sentenced to life imprisonment in Special Case No.80/2013. The petitioner's husband is in custody [including remission] for a period over 14 years. The petitioner seeks emergency parole because her mother-in-law has died on 8/2/2026 and the obsequies ceremony is scheduled to be held tomorrow [i.e. 18/2/2026].

(2.) Mr.Prathap S.S., the learned counsel for the petitioner, argues for emergency parole to the petitioner's husband relying upon these circumstances, and Mr. B.Ravindranath, the learned Additional Government Advocate, relying upon the provisions of Rule 191 of the Karnataka Prison (Amendment) Rules, 2000, [for short, 'the Rules of 2000'], contends that because the petitioner's husband is convicted for the offences under the POCSO Act, the second respondent is justified in insisting on releasing him on emergency barole but under adequate escort. In rejoinder, Mr. Prathap S S also submits that [a] if the petitioner's husband is admitted to parole upon being escorted, the petitioner will have to pay costs of Rs.30,000.00, and [b] the petitioner's husband is admitted to parole earlier by this Court and the petitioner's husband has returned to prison without room for complaint.

(3.) These peculiar circumstances are considered to examine whether this Court must intervene. The amended Rule 191 of the Rules of 2000 vests power in the Superintendent of Jail to release a person who is convicted for the offence of rape to an emergency parole under adequate escort, and the provision reads that the Superintendent 'may' [as against 'shall'] release on parole under an escort. The question whether the Superintendent is under a mandate in law, notwithstanding all circumstances to admit a convict for the offence of rape to emergency parole under adequate escort, can be considered in appropriate case, but in the present case the petitioner makes a request to attend the obsequies ceremonies and the petitioner has been admitted to parole earlier. This Court is of the view that the petitioner has made out a case for intervention. Hence the following: