Smt. Prema vs The State Of Karnataka
2024 Latest Caselaw 27337 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Smt. Prema vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 November, 2024

Author: Hemant Chandangoudar

Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar

                                                    -1-
                                                               NC: 2024:KHC:46350
                                                             WP No. 29271 of 2024




                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                               DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
                                                BEFORE
                           THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
                               WRIT PETITION NO. 29271 OF 2024 (GM-POLICE)

                      BETWEEN:

                           SMT. PREMA W/O RAMESH,
                           AGED 38 YEARS,
                           R/AT NO 726, NEW MICO ROAD,
                           NEAR REKUABCE FRESH,
                           CHANNAKESHAVA NAGAR,
                           HOSA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 100.
                                                                  ...PETITIONER
                      (BY SRI. PRADEEP PATIL., ADVOCATE)

                      AND:
                      1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                           BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
                           HOME DEPARTMENT,
                           VIDHANA SOUDHA,
                           BENGALURU - 560 001.
                      2.   THE LIFE CONVICTS PREMATURE RELEASE
                           COMMITTEE,
Digitally signed by        HOME DEPARTMENT,
R HEMALATHA
Location: HIGH
                           VIDHANA SOUDHA,
COURT OF                   BENGALURU - 560 001,
KARNATAKA                  REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
                      3.   THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
                           PRISONS AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES
                           NO 09, SHESHADRI ROAD,
                           GANDHI NAGAR,
                           BENGALURU - 560 009.
                      4.   THE CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT,
                           CENTRAL PRISON,
                           KALABURAGI - 585 201.
                                                                  ...RESPONDENTS
                      (BY SRI. K.P.YOGANNA., AGA)
                                 -2-
                                               NC: 2024:KHC:46350
                                         WP No. 29271 of 2024




     THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 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 DTD. 21.04.2020 PRODUCED AS ANNX-
B AND BE FURTHER PLEASED TO DIRECT THE PREMATURE
RELEASE OF THE CONVICT PRISONER NO. 330 JOSEPH JOHN
ALIAS PRADEEP RAJ S/O GANESH IN TERMS OF THE ANNX-B.

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

CORAM:    HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

                            ORAL ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the respondents.

2. The petitioner's brother , Joseph John @ Pradeep Raj, S/o Ganesh, has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.

3. The petitioner is seeking a directive for the release of her brother on parole, citing that the convict has served more than 14 years in prison. The Advisory Committee has recommended to Respondent No. 2 the convict's premature release, and this recommendation is currently pending consideration before Respondent No. 2.

4. In identical circumstances, this Court in WP.No.20297/2024 connected with WP.No.20291/2024 has disposed of the case is observed as follows:

NC: 2024:KHC:46350

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:

"(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;

(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(1), 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 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

NC: 2024:KHC:46350

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 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 ball shall continue to remain in operation until the disposal of the application for premature release."

5. In the 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,

NC: 2024:KHC:46350

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 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.

6. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the following:

ORDER

(i) Writ Petition is disposed.

(ii) A mandamus issues to the 1st respondent-State to direct the Committee to meet on or before 10th 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.

(iii) It is made clear that the State Government shall henceforth, direct the 2nd 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.

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

(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.

NC: 2024:KHC:46350

(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."

7. 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.

8. 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.

5. The convict, who is similarly situated having served 14 years of sentence, has established a prima facie case for granting parole. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

i) Writ petition is allowed.

ii) The respondents are hereby directed to release the petitioner's brother, viz., Sri. Joseph Jhon @ Pradeep Raj S/o Ganesh, CTP No.330, on parole for a period of 90 days from the date of his release.

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

NC: 2024:KHC:46350

iv) The Registry is directed to communicate this order to respondents by way of electronic mail.

Sd/-

(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

AM