Allowed

Sri Ravi v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Sept 2024WP/25126/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A life convict who served over fifteen years and was recommended for premature release by the Advisory Committee sought parole. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Rashidul Jafar and an earlier co-ordinate bench order, the court allowed the petition and directed his release on ninety-day parole with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release on parole for ninety days subject to conditions; liberty to seek extension.

Sri Ravi Vs the State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:38925 WP No. 25126 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 25126 OF 2024 (GM-POLICE)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI RAVI S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED 41 YEARS R/AT DUNNASANDRA VILLAGE, ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562106

¶7

PRESENTLY SERVING SENTENCE IN BENGALURU CENTRAL PRISON (CTP NO. 5727)

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. PRADEEP PATIL.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001.

¶13

THE LIFE CONVICTS PREMATURE RELEASE COMMITTEE HOME DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶14

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE PRISONS AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES NO. 9 SHESHADRI ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:38925 WP No. 25126 of 2024

¶17

BENGALURU-560009.

¶18

THE CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON, PARAPPANA AGRAHARA, BENGALURU -560 100

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. SAMANTH NAIK., HCGP)

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO THE RESPONDENTS TO BE PLEASED TO ACT IN STRICT COMPLIANCE OF THE NOTIFICATION BEARING NO. HD 119 PRA 2018, BENGALURU DATED 21.04.2020 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A AND BE FURTHER PLEASED TO DIRECT THE PREMATURE RELEASE OF THE PETITIONER IN TERMS OF THE ANNEXURE-A, ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioner (CTP No.5727) has been convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment in SC No.152/2011 by the learned II Addl. District and Sessions Court, Kolar for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498(A) of IPC.

¶26

As of today, the petitioners has served more than 15 years, which is evident from the imprisonment certificate vide Annexure-B. The Advisory Committee taking into account the conduct of the petitioner has recommended to the respondent No.2 to consider the case of the petitioner for premature release.

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:38925 WP No. 25126 of 2024

¶29

Despite the recommendation, the respondent No.2 has not considered the same as of today.

¶30

The petitioner is seeking a directive to the respondents-police to release him on parole.

¶31

In the identical circumstances, the Apex court in the case of RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR in W.P.(Criminal)No.336/2019 has directed as follows:

¶32

"(i) All cases for premature release of convicts undergoing imprisonment for life in the present batch of cases shall be considered in terms of the policy dated 1 August 2018, as amended, subject to the observations which are contained herein. The restriction that a life convict is not eligible for premature release until attaining the age of sixty years, which was introduced by the policy of 28 July 2021, stands deleted by the amendment dated 27 May 2022. Hence, no case for premature release shall be rejected on that ground;

¶33

(ii) In the event that any convict is entitled to more liberal benefits by any of the amendments which have been brought about subsequent to the policy dated 1 August 2018, the case for the grant of premature release would be considered by granting benefit in terms of more liberal amended para/clause of the policies. All decisions of premature release of convicts, including those, beyond the present batch of cases would be entitled to such a beneficial reading of the policy;

¶34

(iii) In terms of para 4 of the policy dated 1 August 2018, no application is required to be submitted by a convict undergoing life imprisonment for premature release. Further, through amendment dated 28 July 2021, para 3(i), which included convicts undergoing life imprisonment who have not filed application for pre-

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:38925 WP No. 25126 of 2024

¶36

mature release in the prohibited category, has specifically been deleted. Accordingly, all cases of convicts undergoing life sentence in the State of Uttar Pradesh who are eligible for being considered for premature release in terms of the policy, including but not confined to the five hundred and twelve prisoners involved in the present batch of cases, shall be considered in terms of the procedure for premature release stipulated in the policy;

¶37

(iv) The District Legal Services Authorities in the State of Uttar Pradesh shall take necessary steps in coordination with the jail authorities to ensure that all eligible cases of prisoners who would be entitled to premature release in terms of the applicable policies, as noticed above, would be duly considered and no prisoner, who is otherwise eligible for being considered, shall be excluded from consideration.

¶38

(v) These steps to be taken by DLSAs would, include but not be limited to, Secretaries of DLSAs seeking status report on all prisoners undergoing life imprisonment in the prisons falling under their jurisdiction in terms of the format of table prepared in Annexure-A covering the details mentioned in para 13 of this judgment and ensuring its submission by relevant authorities within eight weeks of this order as well as on an annual basis. Further, DLSAs would utilize this status report to monitor and engage with respective authorities to ensure the implementation of our directions to ensure premature release in terms of applicable policies in all eligible cases of convicts undergoing life sentence on a continuous basis;

¶39

(vi) The applications for premature release shall be considered expeditiously. Those cases which have already been processed and in respect of which reports have been submitted shall be concluded and final decisions intimated to the convict no later than within a period of one month from the date of this order. Cases of eligible life convicts who are (i) above the age of

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:38925 WP No. 25126 of 2024

¶41

seventy years; or (ii) suffering from terminal ailments shall be taken up on priority and would be disposed of within a period of two months. The Uttar Pradesh State Legal Services Authority shall, within a period of two weeks, lay down the priorities according to which all other pending cases shall be disposed of. All other cases shall, in any event, be disposed of within a period of four months from the date of this order; and

¶42

(vii) Where any convict undergoing life imprisonment has already been released on bail by the orders of this Court, the order granting interim bail shall continue to remain in operation until the disposal of the application for premature release."

¶43

In the identical circumstances the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by following the decision of the Apex Court in the case of RASHIDUL JAFAR (SUPRA) has issued a direction to respondent No.1-State therein directing as follows:

¶44

"10. On a coalesce of what the Apex Court has considered in all the afore-quoted judgments, what would unmistakably emerge is that cases of life convicts who are entitled for consideration of their premature release, should be considered without any loss of time. In the case at hand, the Committee has not met for the last 8 months which has resulted in plethora of cases being filed before this Court seeking a mandamus only to place those applications before the committee in the ensuing meeting. When the meeting would ensue the State itself is not aware, as no concrete date is being divulged for the committee to meet. In the afore-said circumstances, I deem it appropriate to direct the State Government to henceforth direct the 2^nd respondent/Committee to meet at least 6 times a year – once in two months, so that those application/s are considered at the right time on their individual merit and cases being filed only to place the application/s before the committee would be obviated. Till such time that the application of the petitioner would merit consideration

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:38925 WP No. 25126 of 2024

¶47

before the committee, he would be entitled to be released on parole, in accordance with law, for a period that the Authorities of the jail would prescribe or till such time, the committee would meet and consider the case of the petitioner.

¶48

6. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶49

ORDER

¶50

(i) Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶51

(ii) A mandamus issues to the 1^st respondentState 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.

¶52

(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.

¶53

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

¶54

(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.

¶55

(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."

¶56

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:38925 WP No. 25126 of 2024

¶57

The respondent therein considered the petitioner therein for release on general parole in accordance with law, till the committee considers the application for premature release.

¶58

The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in its order dated 17.04.2023 clarified that the petitioner therein shall be released on parole forthwith, till his case is considered by the Committee.

¶59

The petitioner has established a prima facie case for granting parole. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶60

ORDER

¶61

i) The petition is allowed.

¶62

ii) The respondents are hereby directed to release the petitioner/convict on parole for a period of ninety days from the date of their release, subject to petitioner undertaking not to involve in unlawful activities during the parole.

¶63

iii) The respondents shall stipulate strict conditions as are usually stipulated to ensure his return to the prison and the convict shall not commit any other offence during the period of parole.

¶64

iv) The parole granted stands automatically cancelled if the petitioner violate of any of the stipulated conditions.

¶65

v) The petitioner to mark their attendance with the jurisdictional police on the first day of every week.

¶66

vi) The petitioner is at liberty to seek extension of parole.

¶67

¶68

NC: 2024:KHC:38925 WP No. 25126 of 2024

¶69

vii) The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Jail Authority through electronic mail.

¶70

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶71

BKM

Sri Ravi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ravi v. the 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

M/S Naveena Granites Vs M/S Mysore Minerals Limited

Axis Bank Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka by

Venugopala G S Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Gsk Projects and Engineering (P) Ltd. Vs Canara Bank

Muniyabhovi Vs the Chief Superintendent

Sri Shankar K N Vs Canara Bank