Karnataka High Court

Sri. Nagaraja vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 October, 2024

Author: Hemant Chandangoudar

Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar

                                                     -1-
                                                                 NC: 2024:KHC:43348
                                                              WP No. 28925 of 2024




                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                                  DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

                                                  BEFORE
                             THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
                                 WRIT PETITION NO. 28925 OF 2024 (GM-POLICE)
                        BETWEEN:

                             SRI. NAGARAJA
                             S/O SAJJAPPA,
                             AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
                             R/AT NO. GOWDTHI VILLAGE,
                             PAVAGADA TALUK,
                             TUMKURU DISTRICT-561 202.

                             PRESENTLY SERVING SENTENCE
                             IN BENGALURU CENTRAL PRISON
                             (CTP NO.7352)
                                                                       ...PETITIONER
                        (BY SRI. PRADEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE)

                        AND:

                        1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                             REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
                             HOME DEPARTMENT,
Digitally signed by B        VIDHANA SOUDHA
K
MAHENDRAKUMAR                BENGALURU-560 001
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
                        2.   THE LIFE CONVICTS PREMATURE RELEASE
                             COMMITTEE,
                             HOME DEPARTMENT,
                             VIDHANA SOUDHA,
                             BENGALURU-560 001,
                             REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

                        3.   THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
                             PRISONS AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES
                             NO.9, SHESHADRI ROAD,

                             GANDHI NAGAR
                             BENGALURU-560 009
                                -2-
                                              NC: 2024:KHC:43348
                                          WP No. 28925 of 2024




4.   THE CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT
     CENTRAL PRISON,
     PARAPPANA AGRAHARA,
     BENGALURU-560 100
                                                 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.P. YOGANNA, AGA)

     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 DATED. 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

Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondents

2. The petitioner viz., Sri.Nagraja (CTP.No.7352) has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The petitioner has served more than 14 years 10 months of sentence currently and the Advisory Committee has recommended to the Life Convicts Release Committee to release the petitioner prematurely and the same is pending consideration.

3. In the identical circumstances, the Apex court in the case of RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR

NC: 2024:KHC:43348

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 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

NC: 2024:KHC:43348

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."

4. 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:

NC: 2024:KHC:43348

"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.

5. 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.

NC: 2024:KHC:43348

(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."

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. The petitioner who is similarly situated 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 (CTP No.7352) 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.

NC: 2024:KHC:43348

c. 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.