A parole-extension request cannot be rejected without reasons.

The petitioner, Mahantesh Angadi, sought parole for his brother-in-law, Sidlingappa @ Mudakappa, who had been serving a sentence for offences under Sections 302, 114 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code and had undergone 18 years and 6 months’ incarceration.

The convict was granted 30 days’ general parole on 19 June 2026, with a direction to surrender by 20 July 2026.

On 25 June 2026, he applied for a further 30 days, stating that agricultural work remained unfinished and that no other family member was available to attend to it.

The request was rejected. The petitioner challenged the rejection, contending that the application was timely under the Karnataka Prisons and Correctional Service Manual, 2021, and that the rejection gave no reasons.

1. Whether the convict’s application for an extension of general parole was made within the time prescribed by Section 642 of the Karnataka Prisons and Correctional Service Manual, 2021.

2. Whether the rejection of the extension request, which disclosed no reasons, should be quashed and reconsidered.

Section 640 of the Karnataka Prisons and Correctional Service Manual, 2021 provides that general parole may initially be granted for up to 30 days and extended by up to a further 60 days, subject to a total maximum of 90 days; the Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services is the competent authority to grant it.

Under Section 642, a prisoner seeking an extension must apply to the Head of the Institution at least 10 days before the parole period expires; absent an extension order before expiry, the prisoner must return to prison.

The Court also directed that the request be considered in light of the objectives of parole set out in Section 636.

The convict applied for an extension on 25 June 2026, before the expiry of the initial parole period on 20 July 2026; the Court therefore found no procedural error in the timing of the application under Section 642.

The rejection order did not state any reason for declining the request.

Given the Manual’s provision for parole of up to 90 days and the absence of reasons in the impugned order, the Court considered reconsideration appropriate, while leaving the merits of the extension request to the competent authority.

Respondent No. 2 was directed to forward the file to the Director General, Office of Correctional Services, Karnataka State, Bengaluru, who must consider the request for a further 30 days in light of Section 636 and pass appropriate orders within 15 days of receiving a certified copy of the judgment, subject to lawful conditions.

The Court did not itself grant the extension.