Disposed¶53

Sri. Naveen N v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC26 Mar 2026WP/8714/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru), Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum, 26-03-2026, WP No. 8714 of 2026 (GM-POLICE): mandamus petition by brother of life convict Mahesh .N seeking consideration of premature release under Notification HD 119 PRA 2018 dated 21.04.2020 held premature as the Advisory Board had not yet recommended; writ petition disposed of with liberty to pursue remedies after the Advisory Board decides; no costs.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; liberty reserved to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies, if so advised, after the Advisory Board takes a decision; petitioner directed to await the outcome of the proceedings before the Advisory Board. No costs. ¶53

Sri. Naveen N Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶53

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents are to be directed to act in strict compliance of Notification No. HD 119 PRA 2018 dated 21.04.2020 (Annexure-A) and to consider the case of prisoner No. 9905 Mahesh .N for premature release. +1 more

¶33

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner has approached the Court at a premature stage; until the Advisory Board completes its consideration and renders its recommendation, no enforceable right accrues to the petitioner to seek a direction against the respondents.

¶48

Key takeaways

The respondents cannot be said to have failed in discharging any statutory duty so as to warrant issuance of a writ of mandamus at this stage.ratio¶48
The writ petition is disposed of, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies after the Advisory Board takes a decision; the petitioner is directed to await the outcome of the proceedings before the Advisory Board. No costs.ratio¶53

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-POLICE) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution - filed by the brother of life convict prisoner No. 9905 Mahesh .N, serving life sentence in Bengaluru Central Prison, seeking mandamus to direct the respondents to act in strict compliance of Notification No. HD 119 PRA 2018 dated 21.04.2020 (Annexure-A) and to consider the convict's case for premature release. The learned AGA submitted that the case is already before the Advisory Board constituted for examining premature-release cases and is under active consideration, with no recommendation yet made. Held: the petition is premature - until the Advisory Board completes its consideration and renders its recommendation, no enforceable right accrues to the petitioner and no failure of statutory duty warranting mandamus is made out. Writ petition disposed of, liberty reserved to avail appropriate remedies after the Advisory Board decides; petitioner to await its outcome. No costs. (Sachin Shankar Magadum, J.)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:17564 WP No. 8714 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 8714 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. NAVEEN .N S/O NANJUNDAIAH

¶9

AGED 30 YEARS

¶10

R/AT MADAVADI, TALAKADU HOBALI

¶11

T. NARASIPURA TALUK HOLESALU (KAVERIPURA) MYSORE-571122.

¶12

THE PETITIONER IS THE BROTHER OF

¶13

THE CONVICT PRISONER NO. 9905 MAHESH.N

¶14

WHO IS SERVING LIFE SENTENCE IN BENGALURU CENTRAL PRISON.

¶15

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

…PETITIONER

¶17

(BY SRI. PRADEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶20

HOME DEPARTMENT

¶21

VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶22

¶23

NC: 2026:KHC:17564 WP No. 8714 of 2026

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

THE LIFE CONVICTS

¶26

RELEASE COMMITTEE HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN

¶27

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

¶28

PRISONS AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES NO. 9, SHESHADRI ROAD

¶29

GANDHI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560009.

¶30

THE CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON, PARAPPANA AGRAHARA BENGALURU-560100.

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SRI. K.P.YOGANNA, AGA)

¶33

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT 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 NO. 9905 MAHESH .N S/O NANJUNDAIAH FOR PREMATURE RELEASE IN TERMS OF THE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶34

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

¶35

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:17564 WP No. 8714 of 2026

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶39

ORAL ORDER

¶40

The captioned writ petition is filed by the brother of the convict seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the prisoner, namely Mahesh N. S/o Nanjundaiah, for premature release in terms of the Government Order produced at Annexure–A. The grievance projected by the petitioner is that there is inaction on the part of the respondents in considering the case of the convict for premature release.

¶41

Learned Additional Government Advocate, on instructions, submits that the case of the convict has already been placed before the Advisory Board constituted for examining cases of premature release and the same is presently under active consideration. It is further submitted that the process of evaluation is underway and the Advisory Board is yet to take a decision in accordance

¶42

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:17564 WP No. 8714 of 2026

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

with the applicable guidelines and statutory framework.

¶45

Learned AGA would therefore contend that, at this stage,

¶46

the petitioner cannot seek any direction from this Court, as the matter has not attained finality and the writ petition

¶47

is clearly premature.

¶48

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, this Court finds that the case of the convict is admittedly pending consideration before the Advisory Board and no recommendation has yet been made. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has approached this Court at a premature stage. Unless and until the Advisory Board completes its consideration and renders its recommendation, no enforceable right accrues to the petitioner to seek a direction against the respondents. Consequently, the respondents cannot be said to have failed in discharging any statutory duty so as to warrant issuance of a writ of mandamus at this stage.

¶49

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:17564 WP No. 8714 of 2026

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

In view of the aforesaid, this Court is not

¶53

inclined to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition stands disposed of , reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies, if so advised, after the Advisory Board takes a decision in the matter. The petitioner is directed to await the outcome of the proceedings pending before the Advisory Board.

¶54

No costs.

¶55

SD/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶56

CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 71

Sri. Naveen N v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Naveen N 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

B Yashodha Vs Hanumanthnagra Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Ramu Vs the State of Karnataka

One Trade Alliance Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Vineeth Kumar M G Vs the State of Karnataka

The Branch Manager Vs Smt Bhagyamma

Venkateshmurhty Y G Vs Joint Director