Karnataka High Court

Sri Ganganna vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 October, 2024

Author: Hemant Chandangoudar

Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar

                                                      -1-
                                                                  NC: 2024:KHC:42129
                                                                WP No. 27931 of 2024




                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                                 DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

                                                   BEFORE
                             THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
                                WRIT PETITION NO. 27931 OF 2024 (GM-POLICE)
                        BETWEEN:

                        1.    SRI GANGANNA
                              S/O ULLARTHI BHARAMANNA
                              AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
                              CURRENTLY SERVING LIFE IMPRISONMENT
                              IN OPEN AIR PRISON,
                              DEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU RURAL-562 110.

                              PERMANENT R/AT
                              THAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
                              KUDLIGI TALUK, BELLARI-583 135.
                                                                       ...PETITIONER
                        (BY SRI. PRADEEP PATIL., ADVOCATE)

                        AND:
Digitally signed by B
K
MAHENDRAKUMAR
Location: HIGH
                        1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
COURT OF
KARNATAKA                     BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
                              HOME DEPARTMENT
                              VIDHANA SOUDHA
                              BENGALURU-560 001.

                        2.    THE LIFE CONVICTS PREMATURE
                              RELEASE COMMITTEE
                              HOME DEPARTMENT
                              VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001
                              REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
                                     -2-
                                                 NC: 2024:KHC:42129
                                               WP No. 27931 of 2024




3.   THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
     PRISONS AND CORRECTIONAL
     SERVICES NO. 9 SHESHADRI ROAD,
     GANDHI NAGAR BENGALURU-560 009.

4.   THE SUPERINTENDENT
     OPEN AIR PRISON
     DEVANAHALLI,
     BENGALURU RURAL -562 110.
                                                   ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K P YOGANNA., AGA)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT 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 ANNEXURE-A AND BE FURTHER PLEASED TO DIRECT
THE PREMATURE RELEASE OF THE PETITIONER IN TERMS
OF THE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
                             ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction for his release on general parole.

2. The petitioner has served imprisonment for more than 14 years and 6 months as of today.

NC: 2024:KHC:42129

3. The case of the petitioner for premature release has been recommended by the Advisory Committee and is currently pending consideration before the second respondent.

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,

NC: 2024:KHC:42129

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 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

NC: 2024:KHC:42129

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 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

NC: 2024:KHC:42129

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. 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

NC: 2024:KHC:42129

consideration of his case 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.

(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 02.03.2023 clarified that the petitioner therein shall be released on parole forthwith, till his case is considered by the Committee.

NC: 2024:KHC:42129

9. The petitioner has established a prima facie case for granting parole. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

a. The Writ Petition is allowed.

b. Respondents are hereby directed to release the petitioner/convict on parole for a period of 90 days from the date of his release, subject to petitioner undertaking not to involve in unlawful activities during the parole.

c. 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.