Karnataka High Court
Ganganna S/O Ullarthi Bharamanna vs State Of Karnataka on 17 February, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3184
WP No. 101074 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO.101074 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
GANGANNA S/O. ULLARTHI BHARAMANNA,
AGE: 45 YEARS
CURRENTLY SERVING LIFE IMPRISONMENT
IN OPEN AIR PRISON,
DEVANAHALLI,
BENGALURU RURAL - 562 110.
PERMANENT R/AT
THAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KUDLIGI TALUK,
BALLARI DISTRICT - 583 135.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI H. N. GULARADDI, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
VISHAL NINGAPPA
AND:
PATTIHAL
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench,
Dharwad 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARIAT,
DEPARTMENT OF HOME,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE LIFE CONVICTS PREMATURE
RELEASE COMMITTEE,
HOME DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3184
WP No. 101074 of 2025
3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
PRISONS AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICE,
NO.9 SHESHADRI ROAD,
GANDHI NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 009.
4. THE CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT,
CENTRAL PRISON,
DHARWAD - 580 008.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE A
WRIT, ORDER OR 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 CONVICT PRISONER NO 1010
NAMELY SRI GANGANNA S/O ULLARTHI BHARAMANNA, IN
TERMS OF THE ANNEXURE-A. ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR
DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO THE
RESPONDENT NO 4 TO RELEASE THE PRISONER NO 1010
NAMELY SRI GANGANNA S/O ULLARTHI BHARAMANNA ON
PAROLE TILL THE DECISION OF THE GOVERNMENT FOR
PREMATURE RELEASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3184
WP No. 101074 of 2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
1. The petitioner was before this Court in Writ
Petition No.27931 of 2024 which comes to be disposed on
21st October 2024 by the following 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.
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
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3184
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 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.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3184
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 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 plethora of cases being filed before
this Court seeking a mandamus only to place those
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3184
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 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
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3184
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."
2. The petitioner was granted parole by the
aforesaid order for a period of 90 days, which is now ended
on 25.01.2025 and the petitioner has returned to the gaol
and the petitioner is again before this Court seeking grant
of parole till a decision is taken by the Cabinet upon the
recommendation by the Committee for premature release of
the petitioner.
3. In that light, I deem it appropriate to grant the
parole for a period of 90 days commencing from
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3184
20.02.2025, reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek
extension at the hands of this Court.
4. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(1) The petition is allowed in part.
(2) Mandamus issues to the respondents to consider
the case of the petitioner and release the
detenue / Ganganna on general parole
for 90 days commencing from 20.02.2025, which
becomes operational from the forenoon of
20.02.2025 subject to the following conditions:
(i) The convict shall mark his attendance in the
jurisdictional Police station, weekly once
throughout the period of his parole and it
would be the responsibility of the
jurisdictional Police to take him to gaol, in
the event, the convict would evade going
back to the gaol, after the expiry of the
period of general parole.
(ii) Respondent No.1 shall stipulate strict
conditions as are usually stipulated, to
ensure return of the detenue to the gaol
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3184
and that he shall not commit any other
offence during the period of parole.
(3) The petitioner is at liberty to seek extension of
parole, which shall be considered looking at the
conduct of the petitioner - convict while he is out
on parole.
(4) The registry is directed to communicate the
order to the prison authority for its execution.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
VNP/CT-ASC
