Karnataka High Court
Noorjan vs State Of Karnataka on 25 November, 2024
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:48212
WP No. 31282 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 31282 OF 2024 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
NOORJAN
D/O MASTHAN SAB.
MOTHER OF ASGAR @ ASGAR PASHA (CTP 10665)
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
R/O ISLAMPURA, NELAMANGALA TALUKU,
BANGALORE RURAL,
KARNATAKA-562 123.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SIRAJUDDIN AHMED, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed by
R HEMALATHA HOME DEPARTMENT,
Location: HIGH THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
COURT OF VIDHANA SOUDHA,
KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT
CENTRAL PRISON,
BALLARI-583 103.
3. THE LIFE CONVICTS RELEASE COMMITTEE
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHAIRMAN AND PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
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)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:48212
WP No. 31282 of 2024
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT
THAT PETITIONER'S SON ASGAR AT ASGAR PASHA (CTP 10665)
WHO IS A CONVICT PRISONER TO CONSIDER HIS APPLICATION
TO RELEASE HIM PREMATURELY AND 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, ACCORDING TO
THE COPY OF THIS HONORABLE COURT GRANTED GENERAL
PAROLE FOR A PERIOD OF 90 DAYS WITH LIBERTY TO SEEK
EXTENSION OF PAROLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW IN WAZEER
AHAMED VS STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS (WP NO.
25908/2024) WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE -B.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner's son, namely Asgar alias Asgar Pasha (CTP
No.10665), has been convicted for the offences punishable under
Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC and sentenced to life
imprisonment.
2. The petitioner is seeking a directive to the respondents
to release her son on parole, citing that he has completed 18 years
and 9 months of imprisonment. The petitioner further states that
other accused convicted in relation to the same crime have been
released prematurely. Additionally, the Advisory Committee has
recommended the release of the convict on three occasions, but
the same has not been considered for reasons unknown.
3. Learned AGA, representing the State, submits that the
recommendations made by the Advisory Committee are pending
consideration before respondent No.3.
NC: 2024:KHC:48212
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(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 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
NC: 2024:KHC:48212
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 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."
5. In the identical circumstances the Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court by following the decision of the Apex Court in the of
NC: 2024:KHC:48212
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 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. The accused convicted in relation to the same crime
have been released prematurely. Therefore, the petitioner's
request for the premature release of her son should be considered
by respondent No.3. The petitioner's son is currently on parole,
which is set to expire on 28.11.2024. Hence, the convict is entitled
to remain on parole until his case for premature release is
considered. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
a. The Writ Petition stands disposed of.
NC: 2024:KHC:48212
b. Respondent No.3 is directed to consider the case
of the petitioner's son for premature release strictly
in conformity with the guidelines issued by the
Apex Court in the case of RASHIDUL JAFAR
(SUPRA) in the ensuing meeting.
c. Till consideration of the same, the convict is
entitled for parole for a period of 60 days from
28.11.2024.
Sd/-
(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR)
JUDGE
GPG
CT:SNN
