Karnataka High Court

Sri Narasihmaiajh @ Kore vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 March, 2025

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

                                               -1-
                                                         NC: 2025:KHC:10151
                                                       WP No. 6600 of 2025




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                           DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

                                            BEFORE
                          THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
                         WRIT PETITION NO. 6600 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE)
                   BETWEEN:

                         SRI. NARASIHMAIAH @ KORE
                         S/O KRISHNAPPA,
                         AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
                         R/AT NO.226, IST MAIN ROAD,
                         ANJANEYA TEMPLE ROAD,
                         JAYANAGAR,
                         BENGALURU-560 041
                         SERVING SENTENCE IN CENTRAL PRISON,
                         BENGALURU, (CTP NO.4771)
                         (CURRENTLY ON PAROLE)
                                                               ...PETITIONER
                   (BY SRI. PRADEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:
Digitally signed
by NAGAVENI
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-560 001
                         REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
                             -2-
                                           NC: 2025:KHC:10151
                                      WP No. 6600 of 2025




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

4.   THE CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT
     CENTRAL PRISON,
     BENGALURU-560 100
                                              ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA, 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 M.NAGAPRASANNA


                      ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court seeking extension

of parole so granted by the co-ordinate bench of this Court

in W.P.No.32265/2024. The co-ordinate bench while

granting parole has observed as follows:

NC: 2025:KHC:10151

"2. The petitioner's case for premature release has been recommended by the Advisory Committee. However, respondent No.2 has not taken any steps to consider the proposal submitted by the petitioner. Therefore, considering the circumstances, the jail authorities have granted parole for a period of 30 days.

3. 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 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: 2025:KHC:10151

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. The Advisory Committee has also recommended the premature release of the petitioner. The petitioner has served 16 years and 4 months of sentence as of today and has no record of violating the conditions of parole. The imprisonment certificate indicates that the petitioner's conduct is satisfactory. Following the decision of the Apex Court in the case of RASHIDUL JAFAR (Supra), the petitioner has established the prima facie case for releasing him on parole.

5. Accordingly, I pass the following;

                              ORDER
       i)     The petition is allowed.

                                                 NC: 2025:KHC:10151





          ii)    The respondent No.4 is hereby directed to release

the petitioner (CTP No.4771) on parole for a period of ninety days from the date of release subject to the condition that the convict shall not involve in any unlawful activities during the period of parole.

iii) The respondents are at liberty to impose conditions as are usually stipulated to ensure the return of the convict to the prison, and that he shall not commit any other offences during the period of parole.

iv) The parole granted stands automatically cancelled if the petitioner (CTP No.4771) violates of any of the stipulated conditions.

v) The petitioner (CTP No.4771) to mark his attendance with the jurisdictional police on the first day of every week.

vi) The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Jail Authority through electronic mail."

2. It is an admitted fact that the case of the

petitioner has been recommended for premature release

and is pending at the hands of the competent authority.

In that light, the co-ordinate bench had granted the

petitioner parole for a period of ninety days which is said

to expire today i.e. on 11.03.2025.

3. In the light of the matter pending before the

Committee even today, I deem it appropriate to extend

the parole for another ninety days from 12.03.2025 to