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.

ORDER :

M.NAGAPRASANNA, J.

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer:

a. “Issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order as per Annexure-E proceedings dated 30.06.2025 as Respondent No.4 Committee as far as only the Petitioner is concerned and consequently direct Respondent no.3 Committee to consider the request made by the Petitioner herein for his premature Release in strict compliance of the Notification/Guidelines produced at Annexure-J and consequently direct Respondent No.5 to extend remission and to release the Petitioner on General Parole for a period of 90 days with timely extension from Central Prison, Bellary till his Representation seeking for his Premature Release produced at Annexure-D dated 30.06.2025 is considered by the concerned authorities.

b. Issue any other writ or Order or Direction that deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.”

2. The petitioner - convict was convicted of offences punishable under Sections 376 , 307, 324 and 506 of the IPC in S.C. No.79/2020. The petitioner has been in prison for the last 14 years and 2 months in terms of the imprisonment certificate. The petitioner’s case has now been recommended for premature release, and the matter is presently before the Committee constituted to consider such premature release.

3. This court in identical circumstances, in the case of SRI OMKARMURTHY VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA DISPOSED ON 02.03.2023 [(2023) 4 KANT LJ 181] has held as follows:

“The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents 1, 3 and 4 to place the case of the petitioner before the Life Convicts Premature Release Committee (‘the Committee’ for short), the 2nd respondent.

2. Heard Sri.K.B.Monesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri.B.V.Krishna, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents.

3. Facts adumbrated are as follows:

The petitioner gets embroiled in a crime which ends up in his conviction in S.C.No.52/2008. On the registration of a crime for the offences punishable under Sections 201, 302 and 376 of the IPC , the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. By then, the petitioner was already in custody from 23.11.2007 itself, and continued to be in custody till the learned Sessions Judge convicted him for the aforesaid offences on 12.10.2010.

4. The petitioner files a criminal appeal before this Court in Crl.A.No.184/2020, wherein, this Court acquitted the petitioner of the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC and affirmed the conviction for other offences under Sections 201 and 302 of the . The petitioner continues to be in prison and is now in prison for the last 16 years. The jail authorities have also issued certificates favouring the petitioner observing that his conduct has been exemplary throughout. On all the aforesaid basis, the petitioner seeks his premature release / remission on the ground that he has been a life convict for over 16 years and 10 months along with the entitlement of remission before the jail authorities. What drives the petitioner to this Court is that, the case of the petitioner is not placed before the Committee - the second respondent by the fourth respondent.

5. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner Sri.K.B.Monesh Kumar would contend that the Committee is required to meet once in two months, six times in a year and the Committee has not met for the last six months and therefore, the application of the petitioner has not been able to be placed before the Committee to consider his premature release.

6. On the other hand, the learned Add