Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.Nagaprasanna
Shyamanna Gowda – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M.Nagaprasanna, J.
1.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has filed this application seeking extension of general parole granted to him, the convict (CTP No.8992), by this Court on 24.10.2024 and on 08.04.2025, on the very same reason that his application is pending consideration before the Committee seeking premature release.
2. This Court, in identical circumstances, in W.P.1300 of 2023 has passed the following order:
“8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. Therefore, they require no iteration. The issue in the lis lies in a narrow compass with the relief sought being only to place the case of the petitioner before the second respondent - Committee without any loss of time with regard to the entitlement of the petitioner for premature release in terms of law. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been knocking at the doors of the Jail Authorities since 22.07.2022. The representation of the petitioner has not been placed before the Committee, only on the ground that the Committee has not met. It is now close to 8 months that the Committee has not met. In these circumstances, it becomes germane to notice the orders passed by the Apex Court from time t
The court established that life convicts' applications for premature release must be processed promptly, requiring the committee to meet every two months.
The Committee for premature release must meet regularly to timely consider applications; failure to do so infringes the rights of convicts entitled to such reviews.
Where any convict undergoing life imprisonment has already been released on bail by orders of Court, order granting interim bail shall continue to remain in operation until disposal of application fo....
The court mandated the reconsideration of a convict's premature release proposal, emphasizing rehabilitation, age, and new evidence over the initial decision to reject it based on the severity of the....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the decision-making process of the Review Committee in refusing premature release to the petitioner was justified and in accordance with the r....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rejection of a proposal for premature release should consider the convict's health condition, conduct in prison, and the impact of their r....
The policy in effect at the time of conviction must be the primary consideration for determining premature release, unless a more liberal policy is subsequently adopted.
The exercise of executive power of clemency is a duty vested in the Authority for the welfare of the people, and the case of premature release of a life convict is governed by the policy/guidelines o....
The State must adhere to its own legal provisions for considering cases of premature release in a fair and transparent manner.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
