Karnataka High Court

Rathna Poojarthi W/O Babu Pujari vs The Union Of India on 31 October, 2025

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

                                                  -1-
                                                               NC: 2025:KHC-D:14765
                                                           WP No. 106863 of 2025


                       HC-KAR


                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
                                DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
                                                BEFORE
                                THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
                           WRIT PETITION NO.106863 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE)
                      BETWEEN:
                      RATHNA POOJARTHI W/O. BABU PUJARI,
                      MOTHER OR CONVICT NAMELY, SURENDRA @ SOORA
                      S/O. BABU PUJARI (CTP 1441), AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
                      R/O: YERLAPADI, YERLAPADI, POST KARKALA,
                      DISTRICT: UDUPI, KARNATAKA - 574 10.
                                                                          ...PETITIONER
                      (BY SRI. UMME SALMA, ADVOCATE)

                      AND:
                      1.   THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY,
                           MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
                           NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110 001.
                      2.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, HOME DEPARTMENT,
                           THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
                           VIDHAN SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560 001.
                      3.   THE CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT,
                           CENTRAL PRISON, BELGAVI.
                      4.   THE LIFE CONVICTS RELEASE COMMITTEE,
Digitally signed by        REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
VISHAL NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL                   HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,        BANGALORE - 560 001.
Dharwad Bench,
Dharwad               5.   THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
                           PRISONS AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES,
                           SHESHADRI ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.
                                                                      ...RESPONDENTS
                      (BY SRI. M.B.KANAVI, CGSC FOR R1;
                      SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R2 TO R5)

                           THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
                      OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
                      RESPONDENT NO. 2 AND 3 TO CONSIDER FOR PREMATURE RELEASE
                      OF THE PETITIONER'S HUSBAND NAMELY SURENDRA @ SOORE S/O.
                                -2-
                                            NC: 2025:KHC-D:14765
                                         WP No. 106863 of 2025


HC-KAR


BABU PUJARI (CTP-1441) ANY MAY BE ENLARGED/ RELEASE THE
CONVICTED PREMATURELY IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC.,

     THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
B GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

                      ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

1. The petitioner, mother of the convict is before this

Court seeking release of the convict on parole.

2. The son of the petitioner gets embroiled in a crime

and gets convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302

of IPC and has been in prison for the last 15 years and 5 months.

The petitioner has appended the imprisonment certificate issued

by the Jail Authorities. The imprisonment certificate would not

indicate anything adverse in the prison against the petitioner.

The learned counsel further submitted that the case of the

petitioner has been recommended for premature release and is

placed before the Committee for consideration of such premature

release. Projecting the same ground, the petitioner was before

this Court in W.P. No.29376 of 2024. The Coordinate Bench has

held as follows:

"Learned AGA accepts notice for respondents.

2. The petitioner's son viz., Surendra Poojary @ Sooru CTP 1441 has been convicted for the offence

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14765

HC-KAR

punishable under Sections 341, 302 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The petitioner is seeking for a directive to release her son on parole stating that the convict has served 14 years 7 months of imprisonment and the Advisory Committee, taking into account the conduct of the petitioner, has recommended for premature release of the petitioner and the recommendation is pending consideration before the 3rd respondent i.e., the Life Convicts Release Committee.

3. In identical circumstance, this Court in W.P.No.19175/2024 has held as under :

"3. In 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;

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14765

HC-KAR

(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. 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

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14765

HC-KAR

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 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

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14765

HC-KAR

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. The convict in this case i.e., the petitioner's son - viz. Surendra Poojary @ Sooru CTP 1441, similarly situated as that of the petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition, has established a prima facie case for grant of parole.

6. Accordingly, I pass the following;


                               ORDER

           i.     Writ petition is allowed.

           ii.    The respondents are hereby directed to

release the petitioner's son viz. Surendra Poojary @ Sooru CTP 1441 on parole for a period of 90 days from the date of release, subject to the petitioner undertaking not to involve in any unlawful activities during the parole.

iii. The respondents shall stipulate strict conditions as are usually stipulated to ensure

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14765

HC-KAR

his return to the prison and the convict shall not commit any other offence during the period of parole and any violation of conditions, parole granted shall stand automatically cancelled.

iv. The petitioners are at liberty to seek extension of parole in accordance with law.

v. Registry is directed to communicate this order to the respondents through electronic mail, forthwith."

3. In the light of the recommendation of the petitioner

for premature release being pending at the hands of the

Committee, I deem it appropriate to grant the son of the

petitioner parole for a period of 90 days, which would become

operational from the date of release, of the convict from the jail.

Accordingly, the following:

ORDER

(1) The Writ Petition is allowed.

(2) Mandamus issues to respondent No.2 to consider the representation of the petitioner and release the convict (CTP No.1441) -

Surendra @ Soora S/o. Babu Pujari, on general parole for a period of 90 days, which would become operational from the date of release of the convict from the jail, subject to the following conditions:

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14765

HC-KAR

(i) The convict (CTP No.1441) 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 (CTP No.1441) 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 convict to the gaol 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 convict while he is out on parole.