Sri Jayaprakash Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS W P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 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 THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE PRISONER NO1111 DILIP S/O SHIVARAJ KODGE FOR PREMATURE RELEASE IN TERMS OF THE ANNEXURE-A.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:21596 WP No. 11066 of 2026

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

This captioned petition is by the brother of the convict being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in not placing the convict's case for premature release/remission in terms of Notification bearing No.HD 119 PRA 2018 dated 21.04.2020 as per Annexure-A.

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the records.

¶33

The petitioner has approached this Court espousing the cause of his brother, who is a convict undergoing sentence pursuant to judgment rendered in S.C.No.149/2009. The gist of the petitioner’s grievance is that though the said convict has undisputedly completed more than fourteen (14) years of incarceration, the competent authorities have failed to place his case before the Advisory Board constituted in January, 2026 for

¶34

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:21596 WP No. 11066 of 2026

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

consideration of premature release. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that, in terms of the applicable Government Notification governing premature release, the eligibility criteria stipulates completion of ten (10) years of actual sentence without remission and fourteen (14) years with remission.

¶37

In order to substantiate the said assertion, the petitioner has placed reliance on the Imprisonment Certificate dated 26.03.2026, which prima facie discloses that the detenue has undergone incarceration for a period of 14 years and 2 months. The petitioner has further drawn the attention of this Court to the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a suo motu proceeding, wherein a categorical mandate is issued to the authorities to process and place the case of an eligible convict for premature release at least six months prior to the date of eligibility, so as to obviate any unjustified and avoidable continuation of incarceration beyond the period of eligibility.

¶38

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:21596 WP No. 11066 of 2026

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

In the aforesaid factual matrix, it is vehemently

¶41

contended that the continued incarceration of the petitioner’s brother, despite attaining eligibility for consideration of premature release, is in clear

¶42

contravention of the binding guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court, as well as the Government Notification holding the field. The inaction on the part of the respondents, therefore, is not merely administrative delay, but amounts to infringement of the valuable right of the convict to be considered for remission in accordance with law.

¶43

Having given anxious consideration to the submissions made and on perusal of the material placed on record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner’s brother, having completed 14 years and 2 months of incarceration, has undoubtedly acquired a right to be considered for premature release/remission in terms of the prevailing policy. Correspondingly, the respondents are under a legal obligation to ensure timely consideration

¶44

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:21596 WP No. 11066 of 2026

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

of such case, more so in the light of the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon’ble Apex Court. Learned Additional Government Advocate, on instructions, submits that the Advisory Committee is proposed to be convened in the month of May. Recording the said submission, this Court deems it appropriate to issue necessary directions.

¶47

ORDER

¶48

(i) The writ petition is allowed in part.

¶49

(ii) A writ of mandamus is issued directing the first respondent–State to ensure that the case of the petitioner’s brother is placed before the ensuing meeting of the Advisory Committee proposed to be convened in the month of May, for consideration of premature release in accordance with law.

¶50

(iii) The respondents are further directed to consider the case of the petitioner’s brother for grant of general parole, in accordance with law, pending such consideration by the Advisory Committee.

¶51

7 -

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC:21596 WP No. 11066 of 2026

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

(iv) The Registry is directed to forthwith communicate a copy of this order to the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Government of Karnataka, Bengaluru, for strict compliance.

¶55

(v) In the event the Advisory Board recommends premature release, the concerned authorities shall ensure that the benefit of parole is extended to the convict, till the LCRC Committee takes a final decision on such recommendation.

¶56

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶57

SA

¶58

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44

Sri Jayaprakash v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Jayaprakash 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Manager Vs Bhyresha

The Manager Vs Nagaraju

Smt Laxmi Ambekar Vs the Union of India

Sri Lakshminarasimha Swamy Sports and Recreational Association Vs the Government of Karnataka

Sri Manoj Arasu H v Vs Director General and Inspector General of Police

Sri. Sudarshana Vs the State of Karnataka