Partly allowed

Jawahara v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Jun 2024WP/1755/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka, following its recent order in Omkarmurthy's case, directed the State and Release Committee to convene a meeting to consider the premature release application of a life convict who had served 17 years. Additionally, the convict was granted general parole for 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Relief for premature release disposed of by directing the Committee to meet; detenue granted general parole for 30 days from 13.06.2024 to 12.07.2024.

Jawahara Vs State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:20036 WP No. 1755 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 1755 OF 2024 (GM-POLICE)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

JAWAHARA W/O LATE SHAMS-UD-DIN, MOTHER OF IMRAN JALAL @ BILAL AHMED QUOTA (CTP NO. 8822), AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O SADERBAL, HAZARTBAL, SRINAGAR, KASHMIR UNIVERSITY, JAMMU AND KASHMIR-190 006.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SIRAJUDDIN AHMED, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by VANDANA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA, HOME DEPARTMENT, THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶14

CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON OF BENGALURU.

¶15

THE LIFE CONVICTS RELEASE COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT,

¶16

*Retyped and replaced vide Court Order dated 12.06.2024.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:20036 WP No. 1755 of 2024

¶19

VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶20

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE PRISONS AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, SHESHADRI ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. S.T. NAIK, AGA)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R2 AND 3 THAT PETITIONERS SON IMRAN JALAL ALIAS BILAL AHMED QUOTA (CTP.NO.8822) MAY BE ENLARGED/RELEASED PREMATURELY BASED ON THE PERIOD HE HAS UNDERGONE AND HIS CONDUCT IN JAIL AS WELL THE PRESENT HEALTH STATUS OF PETITIONER AND ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING

¶25

IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondents to consider her request for premature release of her son, who is a life convict – CTP No.8822 in terms of the Prison Manual.

¶28

*Retyped and replaced vide Court Order dated 12.06.2024.

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:20036 WP No. 1755 of 2024

¶30

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶31

and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents.

¶32

The brief facts are as follows:

¶33

The petitioner’s son commits crime which ends up in his conviction in S.C.No.1031/2008. On the registration of a crime for the offences punishable under Sections 121, 121A, 122 of

¶34

IPC, 5(b) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, 25(1A) Arms Act, Section 26(2) of Arms Act 1959, U/s. 20 and 23(1) Unlawful Activities (P) Act, 1967, Spl.CC.76/2011 (CCB H&B Bengaluru) U/s. 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, etc and the petitioner’s son was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

¶35

The petitioner’s son continues to be in prison and

¶36

is now in prison for the last 17 years. On all the aforesaid basis, the petitioner seeks premature release of her son on the ground that her son has been a life convict for about 17 years, and since the period of 14 years after which many other convicts have been granted premature release has expired as

¶37

*Retyped and replaced vide Court Order dated 12.06.2024.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:20036 WP No. 1755 of 2024

¶40

held by the Apex Court and this Court, the petitioner herein is also entitled to premature release. In support of his contention, petitioner places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the

¶41

case of Sri Omkarmurthy v. State of Karnataka and Ors. – W.P.No.1300/2023 dated 02.03.2023.

¶42

Per Contra, learned AGA submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶43

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

¶44

In Omkarmurthy’s case (supra) this Court

¶45

followed judgments of the Apex Court and issued appropriate directions to the Life Convicts Release Committee to conduct / hold meetings for the purpose of considering the case of writ petitioner and the like whose cases are placed before it for consideration of their cases for remission / premature release by holding as under:

¶46

“11. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

(i) Writ petition is disposed.

¶49

*Retyped and replaced vide Court Order dated 12.06.2024.

¶50

¶51

NC: 2024:KHC:20036 WP No. 1755 of 2024

¶52

(ii) A mandamus issues to the 1^st respondent – State to direct the Committee to meet on or before 10^th April, 2023 and consider the case of the petitioner and the like, whose cases are placed before it, for consideration of their cases for remission / premature release.

¶53

(iii) It is made clear that the State Government shall henceforth, direct the 2^nd respondent / Committee to meet once in two months, in the light of the directions issued by the Apex Court in the cases referred to in the course of the order.

¶54

(iv) The directions shall be adhered to from the 1^st of April, 2023.

¶55

(v) The petitioner shall be considered for his release on general parole, in accordance with law, till the committee meets and considers his application for his premature release.

¶56

(vi) The Registry is directed to communicate the order to the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Government of Karnataka, Bengaluru for its compliance.”

¶57

In my considered opinion, the aforesaid judgment of this Court in Omkarmurthy’s case (supra) is directly and squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case and consequently, the present petition also deserves to be disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶58

*Retyped and replaced vide Court Order dated 12.06.2024.

¶59

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:20036 WP No. 1755 of 2024

¶60

The petitioner also contends that due to her ill-

¶61

health, illnesses and hospitalisation, in addition to considering the request for premature release, it is necessary that her son is released on parole for a period of 90 days. In view of the facts and circumstances of the instant case, I also deem it just and proper to direct to release of the petitioner on general parole for a period of 30 days by imposing certain conditions.

¶62

In the result, I pass the following:

¶63

ORDER

¶64

(i) The relief of premature release sought for by the petitioner in the petition is hereby disposed of in terms of the judgment of this Court in Sri Omkarmurthy v. State of Karnataka and Ors. – W.P.No.1300/2023 dated 02.03.2023.

¶65

(ii) The respondents are directed to hold / conduct the meeting of the Life Convicts Release Committee to consider the case of the petitioner and the like whose cases are placed before it for consideration of their cases for remission / premature release on the next date of the meeting of the said Committee.

¶66

*Retyped and replaced vide Court Order dated 12.06.2024.

¶67

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:20036 WP No. 1755 of 2024

¶68

(iii) In addition thereto, detenue (Imran Jalal @ Bilal Ahmed Quota) (CTP No.8822) is granted general parole for a period of 30 days, which becomes operational from 13.06.2024 to 12.07.2024.

¶69

(iv) The convict (CTP No.8822) – shall mark his attendance in the jurisdictional police station, weekly once throughout the period of his parole and it would be the responsibility of the jurisdictional police to take him to gaol, in the event, the convict (CTP No.8822) would evade going back to the gaol, after the expiry of the period of general parole.

¶70

(v) Respondents shall stipulate strict conditions as are usually stipulated, to ensure return of the detenue to the gaol and that the convict shall not commit any other offence during the period of parole

¶71

(vi) Registry is directed to communicate this order to respondents by way of electronic mail.

¶72

Sd/JUDGE

¶73

Bmc

¶74

*Retyped and replaced vide Court Order dated 12.06.2024.

Jawahara v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jawahara v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. N. Lokesh Kumar Vs Canara Bank

Neelakantappa Vs Canara Bank

Ramesh B Gowda Vs Karnataka Bank Ltd.

Ms. Xxxx Vs the State of Karnataka

Sudhakar Shetty Vs Union Bank of India

V. Srinivasa Vs the State of Karnataka