Surendra Poojari @ Sooru Vs the Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Surendra Poojari @ Sooru Vs the Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed. Respondent No.3/State to furnish all relevant documents in its custody sought by respondent No.2, excluding the opinions of the Investigating Agency and the Jail Authorities, within two weeks of receipt of a certified copy of the order; respondent No.2 to consider the recommendation for premature release and take a final decision strictly in accordance with law within an outer limit of six weeks thereafter. In the interregnum, the Chief Superintendent, Central Prison, Belagavi directed to release the detenue on parole, subject to conditions: personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum; no departure from district jurisdiction without prior police permission; weekly attendance (preferably Sundays, 10.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m.) before the jurisdictional police station; no criminal activity or association with persons of criminal antecedents; maintenance of peace and good behaviour; furnishing of residential address and active mobile number; surrender before prison authorities on expiry of parole unless extended; liberty to respondents to recall parole and take the detenue into custody on violation. Such parole to continue until respondent No.2 takes a final decision.

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.2 could insist on production of additional documents (family details of the detenue, medical status report, opinion of the Investigating Agency, and opinion of the Jail Authorities) before taking a final decision on the State's recommendation for the petitioner's premature release, and whether such insistence is legally sustainable. +1 more

Court's answer

Once the charge sheet has been filed and the matter has culminated in conviction, the role of the Investigating Agency pales into insignificance and its opinion ceases to have any determinative value in the context of premature release.

Ratio / Principle

After the detenue's case has been examined by the Advisory Board, scrutinized by the competent Committee, and culminated in the State's recommendation, the insistence on obtaining the opinion of the Jail Authorities afresh is superfluous and redundant.

Key takeaways

Respondent No.2's insistence on the additional documents sought is, at least in part, wholly unwarranted and legally unsustainable.ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Premature release of convict — Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking mandamus to Union of India / Ministry of Home Affairs (respondent Nos.1 and 2) to accord concurrence to the State of Karnataka's recommendation (letter No. HD 63 PRA 2023 dated 20.07.2023, Annex-B) for the petitioner's premature release — Respondent No.2 withheld decision pending production of additional documents: family details, medical status report, opinion of the Investigating Agency and opinion of the Jail Authorities — Held: once charge sheet filed and conviction resulted, the Investigating Agency's role pales into insignificance and its opinion ceases to have determinative value for premature release; insistence on a fresh opinion of the Jail Authorities after examination by the Advisory Board and scrutiny by the competent Committee culminating in the State's recommendation is superfluous and redundant; such insistence, at least in part, is wholly unwarranted and legally unsustainable — State directed to furnish remaining documents in its custody within two weeks; respondent No.2 to take final decision on the premature release recommendation within six weeks thereafter — In the interregnum, detenue directed to be released on parole by the Chief Superintendent, Central Prison, Belagavi, subject to conditions including personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties, weekly attendance before jurisdictional police station, and surrender on expiry — Writ petition allowed.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:19974 WP No. 2774 of 2026

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

WRIT PETITION NO. 2774 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE)

BETWEEN:

SURENDRA POOJARI @ SOORU S/O. LATE BABU POOJARI, S/O.HUSSAIN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, (CTP NO.1441), R/AT SHANTHIGIRI, YARLAPADY VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 574 102

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. BALAKRISHNA M R.,ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

AND:

THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS HOME SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI-110001.

THE UNDER SECRETARY (JUDICIAL WING), GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, HALL NO.17, 2ND FLOOR, MAJOR DHYAN CHAND NATIONAL STADIUM, INDIA GATE, NEW DELHI 110 001

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:19974 WP No. 2774 of 2026

HC-KAR

THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (PCAS), HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

…RESPONDENTS

BY SRI. MALLANAGOUDA H, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 SRI. K.P. YOGANNA, AGA FOR R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R1 AND 2 AUTHORITIES TO GIVE CONCURRENCE FOR THE RELEASE OF THE PETITIONER PURSUANT TO THE COMMUNICATION / LETTER BEARING NO. HD 63 PRA 2023 DATED 20.07.2023 AS PER ANNX-B.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL ORDER

The Captioned petition is filed seeking a writ in the

nature of mandamus to direct respondent Nos. 1 and 2/authorities to give concurrence on the recommendations

made by respondent No.3/Government to release petitioner prematurely, alleging that despite third respondent having sent the recommendation, the second respondent has not passed appropriate orders.

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:19974 WP No. 2774 of 2026

HC-KAR

On the previous date of hearing, the learned

counsel appearing for respondent No.1 placed on record a memo indicating that respondent No.3/State has not yet furnished the requisite documents. It is in this backdrop of non-furnishing of documents that respondent No.2 has expressed its inability to take a final decision on the recommendations forwarded by respondent No.3 in relation to the case of the detenue.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the memo filed by respondent No.1. A careful reading of the memo would reveal that respondent No.2 is insisting upon production of certain additional documents, namely: (i) family details of the detenue, (ii) medical status report, (iii) opinion of the Investigating Agency, and (iv) opinion of the Jail Authorities. This Court finds such insistence, at least in part, to be wholly unwarranted and legally unsustainable.

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:19974 WP No. 2774 of 2026

HC-KAR

Once the charge sheet has been filed and the matter has culminated in conviction, the role of the Investigating Agency pales into insignificance, and its opinion ceases to have any determinative value in the context of premature release. Likewise, when the case of the detenue has already been examined by the Advisory Board and thereafter scrutinized by the competent Committee, culminating in a recommendation by respondent No.3/State, the insistence on obtaining the opinion of the Jail Authorities afresh appears to be superfluous and redundant.

Insofar as the other documents are concerned, the learned counsel for respondent No.3/State, on instructions, submits that all necessary documents, except the opinion of the Investigating Agency and the Jail Authorities, shall be furnished within a stipulated time. Recording the said submission and having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to issue necessary directions to

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:19974 WP No. 2774 of 2026

HC-KAR

streamline the decision-making process and obviate

further delay.

Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The writ petition is allowed .

(ii) Respondent No.3/State shall furnish all relevant documents in its custody, as sought by respondent No.2, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, excluding the opinion of the Investigating Agency and the opinion of the Jail Authorities.

(iii) Upon receipt of the said documents, respondent No.2 shall consider the recommendation for premature release and take a final decision, strictly in accordance with law, within an outer limit of six (6) weeks therefrom.

6 -

NC: 2026:KHC:19974 WP No. 2774 of 2026

HC-KAR

(iv) In the interregnum, and having regard to the delay occasioned on account of interdepartmental correspondence, the Chief Superintendent, Central Prison, Belagavi, is hereby directed to release the detenue on parole subject to the following conditions, and such parole shall continue until respondent No.2 takes a final decision as directed supra.

(a) The detenue shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional prison authorities;

(b) The detenue shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the District concerned without prior permission of the jurisdictional police;

(c) The detenue shall mark his attendance once in a week, preferably on every Sunday between 10.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m., before the jurisdictional Police Station;

(d) The detenue shall not, in any manner, indulge in any criminal activity or associate with persons having criminal antecedents;

PAGE NO.6 IS RE-TYPED AND RE-PLACED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 30.04.2026.

7 -

NC: 2026:KHC:19974 WP No. 2774 of 2026

HC-KAR

(e) The detenue shall maintain peace and good behaviour during the period of parole;

(f) The detenue shall furnish his residential address and mobile number to the jurisdictional police and shall keep the same active at all times;

(g) On expiry of the parole period, the detenue shall surrender before the prison authorities without fail, unless the parole is extended in accordance with law;

(h) In the event of violation of any of the above conditions, the respondents are at liberty to recall the parole and take the detenue into custody forthwith, in accordance with law.

Ordered accordingly.

SD/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

ALB, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62