Srinivasa Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:12766 WP No. 6981 of 2025

¶2

1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 6981 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRINIVASA

¶8

S/O VARADAIAH @ VARADEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT MAREGOWDANADODDI MADABALA HOBLI, MAGADI RAMANAGARA – 562 120 PRESENTLY SERVING SENTENCE IN BENGALURU CENTRAL PRISON

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI PRADEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶14

THE LIFE CONVICTS PREMATURE RELEASE COMMITTEE, HOME DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN

¶15

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE PRISONS AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:12766 WP No. 6981 of 2025

¶18

NO. 9, SHESHADRI ROAD

¶19

GANDHI NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 009.

¶20

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

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI RAHUL CARIAPPA K. S., AGA)

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following

¶28

prayer:

¶29

“a. Issue a Writ, Order or direction 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 t consider the premature release of the Petitioner in terms of the Annexure-A.

¶30

b. Issue a Writ, Order or direction in the nature of mandamus to the Respondents to release the petitioner

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12766 WP No. 6981 of 2025

¶32

on parole till the decision of the Government regarding premature release of the life convict in the interest of justice and equity.

¶33

c. Pass such other orders/directions considering the facts and circumstances of the case together as to costs in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶34

Heard Sri. Pradeep Patil, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Rahul Cariappa, learned Additional

¶35

Government Advocate for the respondents.

¶36

The petitioner is the convict in CTP-7342, who is now in prison for the last 14 years and 3 months, for having been convicted for the offences under Sections 498A and 302 of the IPC. Owing to the satisfactory conduct of the petitioner – convict in the prison, his name is recommended for premature release, which is pending consideration before respondent No.2 – Life Convicts Premature Release Committee.

¶37

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in such circumstances, several coordinate benches of this Court and this Court as well have held that till the consideration of the applications of the convicts for premature release happens, parole can be granted.

¶38

4 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:12766 WP No. 6981 of 2025

¶40

This Court in an identical circumstance, in the case of

¶41

SRI OMKARMURTHY VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA ,

¶42

DISPOSED ON 02.03.2023 [(2023) 4 KANT LJ 181], has held as follows:

¶43

“8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. Therefore, they require no iteration. The issue in the li s lies in a narrow compass with the relief sought being only to place the case of the petitioner before the second respondent - Committee without any loss of time with regard to the entitlement of the petitioner for premature release in terms of law. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been knocking at the doors of the Jail Authorities since 22.07.2022. The representation of the petitioner has not been placed before the Committee, only on the ground that the Committee has not met. It is now close to 8 months that the Committee has not met. In these circumstances, it becomes germane to notice the orders passed by the Apex Court from time to time concerning the release of the life convicts. The Apex Court considering the issue Statewise, in the case of SONADHAR VS. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH¹ , as in the State of Uttar Pradesh, has held as follows:

¶44

“STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (U.P.)

¶45

Uttar Pradesh was taken up as one of the states for carrying out a pilot project. The data shows that for the year 2021, 1372 applications were received for premature release of the convicts and 633 applications were allowed by the State Government, while 739 applications were rejected. 588 life convicts have been prematurely released while 45 applications were returned for queries. We are cautious of the extent of pending cases on different aspects in Uttar Pradesh, but we express some concern about 739 applications being rejected, which is a large number and express an apprehension on whether the policy of 28.7.2021, which has added a condition of minimum 60 years before release, was an impediment. Ms.Garima Prashad,

¶46

1 SLA (Crl.) No.529/2021, order dated 09.02.2022

¶47

5 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:12766 WP No. 6981 of 2025

¶49

learned AAG submits that it was not pointed out to the Court in W.P.(Crl) No.398 of 2021 that in view of reservations expressed in different matters on this aspect, the bar of 60 years stands withdrawn. She also makes a submission that an endeavour has been made to streamline the process so that the needful be done within a period 90 days from the inception of clearance and seven occasions have been identified when prisoners would be released. These are Republic day (26^th January), Women’s day (8^th March), World Health Day (7^th April), Labour Day (1^st May), Yoga Day (21^st June), Independence Day (15^th August) and Gandhi Jayanti (2^nd October). In this behalf, we would like to observe that insofar as the first half of he year is concerned, there are five occasions identified for release of prisoners but in the second half only two occasions have been identified. We desire the state Government to identify at least three more significant days for release of prisoners in the second half of the year .”

¶50

(Emphasis supplied)

¶51

The Apex Court while noticing the issue qua the State of Uttar Pradesh, observes that the Committee has met five times a year in the first half of the year. The Apex Court directs that it desires that the State Government to identify atleast three more significant days for release of the prisoners in the second half of the year. Therefore, the direction of the Apex Court would be that the Committee should meet atleast 8 times in a year. The Apex Court also notices that the progress in the State of Karnataka is on track and while observing that, it has held as follows:

¶52

“STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶53

The progress in Karnataka is on track. The Government order dated 21.4.2020 was already existing and in pursuance to this Court’s orders dated 07.7.2021 and 06.10.2021, a meeting was held by the stake holders and following orders are stated to have been passed:-

¶54

“(a) Jail Authority was required to take effective steps for the identification of the life convicts eligible for premature release as on 01.01.2022,

¶55

6 -

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC:12766 WP No. 6981 of 2025

¶57

(b) Jail Authorities were required to hold advisory board meetings in the respective Central Prisons by 24.1.2022,

¶58

(c) Proceedings of such advisory board meetings were to be communicated to the KSLSA by DIG, Prisons & Correctional Services by 28.1.2022, and

¶59

(d) Jail authorities were required to inform whether the prisoners required legal aid in contesting the case or for challenging the rejection/non consideration of their premature release.”

¶60

An Advisory board meeting has thereafter been held and the information analysis shows that out of the 119 eligible persons, 89 prisoners were recommended while cases of 21 prisoners were deferred and cases of 9 prisoners were rejected. The directions sought by the Committee qua Karnataka are as under:-

¶61

“(a) It may be directed that the applications pending with the Life Convicts Release Committee / Karnataka State Government are processed and the process is completed as per the SOP approved by this Hon’ble Court, and

¶62

(b) State of Karnataka may be directed to conduct the exercise afresh for all prisoners (except for the ones considered in the instant round) who will be eligible in July 2022.”

¶63

We accept the suggestion and direct accordingly.”

¶64

Later, the Apex Court while passing orders in the case of KARUNA SHANKAR V. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH² , has held as follows:

¶65

“1 The petitioner was convicted on 2 February 1984 of an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life in Sessions Trial No 309 of 1982 and Sessions Trial No 592 of 1982.

¶66

2 W.P.(Crl.) No.497 of 2022 dtd. 13.01.2023

¶67

7 -

¶68

NC: 2025:KHC:12766 WP No. 6981 of 2025

¶69

2 The custody certificate issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Central Jail, Fatehgarh on 5 January 2023 (which is annexed to the counter affidavit) indicates that the petitioner has undergone a total custody of 15 years and 14 days without remission and 19 years and 04 months with remission.

¶70

3 In response to the plea for premature release, a counter affidavit has been filed by the Superintendent of the District Jail, Ghaziabad. The counter affidavit indicates that Form-A submitted by the petitioner is pending before the District Magistrate, Unnao. The application for premature release was sent to the District Magistrate, Unnao on 2 September 2019. This was sent to the Prison Headquarters by the District Magistrate on 25 October 2022. The Prison Headquarters, on 6 December 2022 directed the Superintendent of the District Jail, Ghaziabad to make available the updated details of the co-accused prisoners and a copy of the judgment of the High Court.

¶71

4 The proposal has been sent to the Prison Headquarters for reconsideration on 28 December, 2022 by the Senior Superintendent of the Central Jail, Fatehgarh.

¶72

5 In view of the settled position of law laid down by this Court the application filed by the petitioner is required to be considered on the basis of the policy as it stood on the date of the conviction. If a more liberalized regime has been brought into effect subsequently, this should also be considered.

¶73

6 The counter affidavit which has been filed on the record indicates that the application has remained pending since September 2019 for well over three years and three months. This delay is without any reason or justification. Since this Court has, while taking notice of the sorry state of affairs in the matter of the release of convicts who have undergone long terms of imprisonment, issued directions to the Director General of Prisons, UP in an earlier case, we are not in these proceedings taking up the issue which is pending consideration.

¶74

8 -

¶75

NC: 2025:KHC:12766 WP No. 6981 of 2025

¶76

7 In the present case we find no reason or justification for the inordinate delay in dealing with the application of the petitioner for premature release.

¶77

8 We accordingly direct that within a month from the date of this order, the Director General of Prisons shall take all necessary steps to ensure that the application for premature release is duly considered and disposed of and file an affidavit of compliance before this Court on or before 15 February 2023.

¶78

9 In the event that no such affidavit is filed, the Registry shall re-list the petition before this Court for directions for compliance.

¶79

10 The Writ Petition is disposed of at this stage giving liberty to the counsel for the petitioner to mention the Writ Petition for revival in case of non-compliance of the direction.

¶80

11 The Director General of Prisons and all concerned authorities are placed on notice that this Court would be constrained to take recourse to the coercive arm of law if other instances indicating recalcitrance of the authorities in dealing with such applications are brought to the notice of the Court.

¶81

12 The Standing Counsel shall immediately forward a copy of the present order to the Director General of Prisons.

¶82

13 Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.”

¶83

(Emphasis supplied)

¶84

The Apex Court in the case of KARUNA SHANKAR (supra) observes that the delay in release of the prisoners on their merit i.e., of those life convicts, depicts a sorry state of affairs of the State of Uttar Pradesh and directs that the Committee should meet and ensure premature release of the life convicts, within a month from the date of the order. If both the orders passed by the Apex Court are read in tandem, what would unmistakably emerge is that, the Committee though would not meet 8 times a year, but should atleast meet 6 times a year, which would mean once in two months, as the life convicts are

¶85

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:12766 WP No. 6981 of 2025

¶86

statutorily entitled for consideration of their premature release in terms of the guidelines notified by the State.

¶87

What are the guidelines to be applied for such release is also considered by the Apex Court in the case of SHARAFAT ALI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH³ , wherein, the Apex Court has held as follows:

¶88

“6. The first principle which must be noted, while adjudicating upon the petition is that the application for premature release has to be considered on the basis of the policy as it stood on the date when the petitioner was convicted of the offence. This principle finds reiteration in several judgments of this Court such as State of Haryana v. Jagdish (2010) 4 SCC 216. The most recent of them is the decision in State of Haryana v. Raj Kumar @ Bitu (2021) 9 SCC 292.

¶89

7. The order which has been passed by the State government in the present case is bereft of an application of mind to relevant circumstances bearing on whether the petitioner should be released prematurely. The order contains general observations to the effect that the release may result in resentment on the side of the victim, but this is a general consideration which would govern virtually all criminal offences where a person stands convicted of a serious offence, as in the present case under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The order does not contain any reference whatsoever to whether the petitioner possesses any prior criminal history, save and except for the present case. Similarly, the order is completely silent on the conduct and behavior of the petitioner in jail and after he was convicted of the offence. The relevant considerations bearing upon whether the release of the petitioner would pose a danger to society have not been adverted to. There has to be a considered application of mind to the facts of each case.

¶90

8. In the circumstances, the order which has been passed rejecting the application of the petitioner for premature release suffers from a complete and patent non-application of mind.

¶91

3 2022 SCC Online SC 193

¶92

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:12766 WP No. 6981 of 2025

¶93

9. For the above reasons, we allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order dated 30 July 2021 passed by the Government of Uttar Pradesh. We direct that the application of the petitioner for premature release shall be reconsidered on the basis of the policy as it stood on 17^th January 2005, when the petitioner was convicted of an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The application shall be considered afresh without the petitioner being required to file any fresh application for premature release. An order shall be passed after taking into account all relevant facts and circumstances including those which have been adverted to above. This exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of this order.”

¶94

(Emphasis supplied)

¶95

The Apex Court holds that the guidelines policy that prevailed at the time when the accused gets convicted is what would become applicable for consideration of the application for premature release. Therefore, there can be no ambiguity for application of guidelines for consideration of the application for premature release of the life convicts, on their merit, for such release. The Apex Court considering the judgment in the case of SHARAFAT ALI (supra) and all other judgments on the issue, in the case of RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA V. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER⁴ , has held as follows:

¶96

“18. We direct that:

¶97

(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

¶98

4 2022 SCC Online SC 1201

¶99

11 -

¶100

NC: 2025:KHC:12766 WP No. 6981 of 2025

¶101

2021, stands deleted by the amendment dated 27 May 2022. Hence, no case for premature release shall be rejected on that ground;

¶102

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;

¶103

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 premature 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;

¶104

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.

¶105

12 -

¶106

NC: 2025:KHC:12766 WP No. 6981 of 2025

¶107

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;

¶108

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 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

¶109

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

¶110

13 -

¶111

NC: 2025:KHC:12766 WP No. 6981 of 2025

¶112

to remain in operation until the disposal of the application for premature release.”

¶113

(Emphasis supplied)

¶114

Therefore, the Apex Court in all the aforesaid orders, have clearly directed the respective State Governments and Director General of Prisons of those States to take necessary steps to ensure that the applications for premature release of life convicts to be considered and disposed, without any loss of time. The Apex Court has also admonished that it would be constrained to take recourse to coercive action, if recalcitrance is displayed.

¶115

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 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.

¶116

In view of the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶117

ORDER

¶118

(i) Writ Petition is disposed.

¶119

14 -

¶120

NC: 2025:KHC:12766 WP No. 6981 of 2025

¶121

(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.

¶122

(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.

¶123

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

¶124

(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.

¶125

(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.”

¶126

In another case, a coordinate bench of this Court in

¶127

W.P.Nos.20297/2024 and connected matter, disposed on

¶128

19.08.2024, has held as follows:

¶129

“3. The case of the petitioners for premature release has been recommended by the Advisory Committee and is currently pending consideration before the Life Convicts Release Committee. The petitioner in WP No. 20297/2024 was granted general parole and has duly surrendered on 01.08.2024.

¶130

15 -

¶131

NC: 2025:KHC:12766 WP No. 6981 of 2025

¶132

4. 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:

¶133

"(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;

¶134

(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;

¶135

(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 premature 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;

¶136

(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

¶137

16 - NC: 2025:KHC:12766 WP No. 6981 of 2025

¶138

eligible for being considered, shall be excluded from consideration.

¶139

(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;

¶140

(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 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

¶141

(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."

¶142

In the identical circumstances the Coordinate 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:

¶143

"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

¶144

17 -

¶145

NC: 2025:KHC:12766 WP No. 6981 of 2025

¶146

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 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.

¶147

In view of the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶148

ORDER

¶149

(i) Writ Petition is disposed.

¶150

(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.

¶151

(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.

¶152

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

¶153

(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.

¶154

18 - NC: 2025:KHC:12766 WP No. 6981 of 2025

¶155

(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."

¶156

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.

¶157

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.

¶158

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

¶159

ORDER

¶160

a. The Writ Petitions are allowed.

¶161

b. Respondents are hereby directed to release the petitioner/convict in W.P.Nos.20297/2024 and 20291/2024 on parole for a period of 90 days from the date of his release, subject to petitioners undertaking not to involve in unlawful activities during the parole.

¶162

c. Respondents shall stipulate strict conditions as are usually stipulated to ensure their return o to the prison and the convicts shall not commit any other offence during the period of parole.

¶163

d. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to respondents, by way of electronic mail, forthwith.

¶164

e. The petitioners are at liberty to seek extension of parole.”

¶165

In the light of the issue standing answered in the afore-

¶166

quoted judgments and also the admitted fact that the

¶167

19 -

¶168

NC: 2025:KHC:12766 WP No. 6981 of 2025

¶169

petitioner’s name is recommended for premature release, I

¶170

deem it appropriate to grant parole for a period of 90 days.

¶171

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶172

ORDER

¶173

(i) The Writ Petition is allowed in part.

¶174

(ii) Mandamus issues to respondent No.4 to release the petitioner (Convict – CTP No.7342) on general parole for a period of 90 days, in terms of the observation made in the course of the order, which commences from the forenoon of 28.03.2025 and ends in the evening of 25.06.2025.

¶175

(iii) The convict (CTP No.7342) - shall mark his attendance in the jurisdictional police station, weekly once throughout the period of his general parole and it would be the responsibility of the jurisdictional police to take him to gaol, in the event, the convict (CTP No.7342) would evade going back to the gaol, after the expiry of the period of general parole.

¶176

(iv) Respondent No.4 shall stipulate strict conditions as are usually stipulated, to ensure return of the convict to the gaol and that he shall not commit any other offence during the period of general parole.

¶177

20 - NC: 2025:KHC:12766 WP No. 6981 of 2025

¶178

(v) Registry is directed to communicate this order to respondent No.4, by way of electronic mail, forthwith.

¶179

(vi) The Committee is thus directed to consider those cases which are pending before it for premature release without brooking any further delay, as it has generated huge number of litigations before this Court.

¶180

(vii) The petitioner is reserved liberty to seek extension of general parole in the event, the Committee could not decide on the recommendation for premature release of the petitioner.

¶181

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA)

¶182

JUDGE

¶183

NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17 CT:SS

Srinivasa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Srinivasa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Aashish Developers Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Premamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri T Srinivas Vs Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd.

Sriramappa Vs Sri Patheshwaraswamy Bhairaveshwaraswamy Temple

Smt D R Ambika Vs the Manager

Mr Abdul Majeed Vs C.S.B. Bank Ltd.