[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Santu @ Santhosh vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:16056
WP No. 5402 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 5402 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
SANTU @ SANTHOSH
@ SANTHOSH POOJARY CTP 13058
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
C/O KRISHNA POOJARY
R/A HOUSE NO 06/129,
N DEVIPRASAD, KUNTALAPADI MANE,
GUDDEANGADI, BOMMARABETTU,
PO GUDDEANGADI,
DISTRICT: UDUPI,
KARNATAKA-576113,
SERVING SENTENCE AT BELLARI CENTRAL PRISON
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SIRAJUDDIN AHMED., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by CHAITHRA A
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
AND:
KARNATAKA
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOME,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001
2. THE CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT
CENTRAL PRISON,
BELLARI-583101
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:16056
WP No. 5402 of 2026
HC-KAR
3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF KARNATAKA PRISON
AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES,
SHEHSHADRI ROAD
BENGALURU-560001
4. THE ADVISORY BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
KARNATAKA PRISON AND CORRECTIONAL
SERVICES,
BENGALURU-560100
5. THE LIFE CONVICTS RELEASE COMMITTEE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOME,
BENGALURU-560001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.P. YOGANNA, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH
THE IMPUGNED PROCEEDINGS OF ADVISORY BOARD AND
LCRC DATED 09.07.2025 PRODUCED AS ANNX-G STRICTLY IN
TERMS OF THE PREMATURE RELEASE POLICY HD 125 PAR 2025
(BA-1) WHICH WAS IN FORCE ON THE DATE OF CONVICTION
OF PETITIONER AND DIRECT THE R1-5 TO RELEASE THE
COVICT SANTU/ SANTOSH @ SANTOSH POOJARY, CTP 13058
TILL THE FINAL DECISION IS TAKEN FOR PREMATURE RELEASE
BY THE R1-5 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:16056
WP No. 5402 of 2026
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
Captioned petition is filed by a convict, who is
undergoing sentence of imprisonment pursuant to
conviction in a murder case, seeking a direction for
remission and premature release by challenging the
proceedings of Advisory Board and LCRC dated 9.7.2025.
2. The facts leading to the case are as under:
The petitioner contends that he has undergone a
substantial period of incarceration in connection with a
conviction for the offence of murder and, therefore, claims
entitlement to be considered for premature release in
terms of the Remission Policy formulated by the State
Government. It is further contended that though several
other criminal cases are pending against the petitioner,
the details of which are furnished in paragraph 6 of the
writ petition, the Advisory Board has failed to properly
advert to the length of sentence already undergone by the
petitioner while considering his case. On this premise, the
NC: 2026:KHC:16056
HC-KAR
petitioner questions the rejection of his claim for remission
by the Advisory Board, as reflected in the proceedings
impugned at Annexure-"G", contending that the order is a
non-speaking one and is arbitrary, thereby offending
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
3. Per contra, the learned Additional Government
Advocate submits that the claim of the petitioner was duly
examined by the competent authority strictly in
accordance with the guidelines issued by the State
Government regulating remission and premature release
of life convicts. He would submit that the policy expressly
stipulates that convicts against whom other criminal cases
are pending are not eligible to be considered for
premature release. Since the petitioner himself has
acknowledged the pendency of such criminal cases and
has furnished the details thereof in paragraph 6 of the writ
petition, the authorities were justified in declining to
consider his case for premature release. On these
grounds, he seeks dismissal of the writ petition.
NC: 2026:KHC:16056
HC-KAR
4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the parties and on perusal of the material placed on
record, this Court has examined the records produced
along with the petition.
5. Before adverting to the merits of the
petitioner's claim and examining the validity of the
proceedings of the Advisory Board, this Court deems it
appropriate to refer to the relevant guidelines issued by
the State Government governing the consideration of
remission and premature release of life convicts. The said
guidelines read as under:
"(viii) A criminal appeal pending in any Court or
criminal case pending trial against the prisoner or fine
amount imposed in conviction order is due"
6. On a plain reading of the aforesaid guideline, it
is manifest that while framing the policy governing
premature release of life convicts, the State has
consciously incorporated conditions excluding those
prisoners who are involved in other pending criminal
NC: 2026:KHC:16056
HC-KAR
proceedings. The object underlying such exclusion is self-
evident. A convict who is involved in other criminal cases,
particularly those relating to grave and heinous offences,
cannot be readily treated as falling within the category of
prisoners eligible for premature release. In such
circumstances, the competent authority would be justified
in forming an opinion that the prisoner does not satisfy the
eligibility criteria contemplated under the policy.
7. The very object of premature release is to
extend the benefit to those prisoners who have
demonstrated genuine reformation during incarceration
and whose release would not pose any threat to society.
In the present case, the petitioner is undergoing sentence
for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC
and, admittedly two other criminal cases are pending
against him. In this factual backdrop, it requires to be
noted that remission or premature release cannot be
claimed as a matter of right by a convict. The power to
grant remission is essentially an executive function falling
NC: 2026:KHC:16056
HC-KAR
within the domain of the competent authority under
Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(corresponding to Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).
8. It is a settled principle of law that consideration
of premature release must strictly conform to the policy
prevailing at the relevant point of time. Having regard to
the guidelines extracted above and the admitted pendency
of criminal cases against the petitioner, this Court is
satisfied that the competent authority was justified in
declining to consider the petitioner's case for premature
release. No ground is made out for interference in exercise
of writ jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of
merits, stands dismissed.
SD/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
ALB
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2
