Karnataka High Court
Rathna Poojarthi vs State Of Karnataka on 6 November, 2024
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:44598
WP No. 29376 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 29376 OF 2024 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
RATHNA POOJARTHI
W/O LATE BABU POOJARI,
MOTHER OF SURENDRA POOJARY
@ SOORU CTP 1441,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/O SHANTHI YERLAPADI POST,
KARKALA, YERLAPADY,
UDUPI, KARNATAKA - 574 102
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. UMME SALMA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SIRAJUDDIN AHMED, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
R HEMALATHA
Location: HIGH HOME DEPARTMENT,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT
CENTRAL PRISON,
BELAGAVI - 591 108
3. THE LIFE CONVICTS RELEASE COMMITTEE
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHAIRMAN AND PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:44598
WP No. 29376 of 2024
HOME DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001
4. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
PRISONS AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES,
SHESHADRI ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.P. YOGANNA, AGA)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS THAT PETITIONERS SON SURENDRA POOJARY
ALIAS SOORU CTP 1441 WHO ARE PRESENTLY LODGED IN
R2'S CENTRAL PRISON BELAGAVI AS CONVICT PRISONER
UNDERGOING LIFE SENTENCE FOR OVER 14 YEARS 10
MONTHS TO CONSIDER HIS APPLICATION FOR PREMATURE
RELEASE OR TO GRANT OF GENERAL PAROLE FOR A PERIOD
OF 90 DAYS WITH FURTHER EXTENSION IN ACCORDANCE
WITH LAW TILL THE COMMITTEE CONSIDERS HIS
APPLICATION FOR PREMATURE RELEASE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:44598
WP No. 29376 of 2024
ORAL ORDER
Learned AGA accepts notice for respondents.
2. The petitioner's son viz., Surendra Poojary @ Sooru CTP
1441 has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections
341, 302 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to
undergo life imprisonment. The petitioner is seeking for a directive
to release her son on parole stating that the convict has served 14
years 7 months of imprisonment and the Advisory Committee,
taking into account the conduct of the petitioner, has recommended
for premature release of the petitioner and the recommendation is
pending consideration before the 3rd respondent i.e., the Life
Convicts Release Committee.
3. In identical circumstance, this Court in
W.P.No.19175/2024 has held as under :
"3. In 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:
"(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
NC: 2024:KHC:44598
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;
(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;
(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-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
NC: 2024:KHC:44598
considered in terms of the procedure for premature
release stipulated in the policy;
(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.
(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;
(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
NC: 2024:KHC:44598
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
(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."
4. In 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:
"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
NC: 2024:KHC:44598
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
2nd 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.
5. The convict in this case i.e., the petitioner's son - viz.
Surendra Poojary @ Sooru CTP 1441, similarly situated as that of
the petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition, has established a prima
facie case for grant of parole.
6. Accordingly, I pass the following;
ORDER
i. Writ petition is allowed.
ii. The respondents are hereby directed to release the
petitioner's son viz. Surendra Poojary @ Sooru CTP
1441 on parole for a period of 90 days from the date
NC: 2024:KHC:44598
of release, subject to the petitioner undertaking not
to involve in any unlawful activities during the parole.
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 and any violation
of conditions, parole granted shall stand
automatically cancelled.
iv. The petitioners are at liberty to seek extension of
parole in accordance with law.
v. Registry is directed to communicate this order to the
respondents through electronic mail, forthwith.
Sd/-
(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR)
JUDGE
rs
