Chaya @ Soma @ Rajesh Ctp-8841 v. State of Karnataka

ORDER

(i) The writ petition is allowed in part.

(ii) The challenge to the proceedings dated 09.07.2025 issued by the Life Convicts Release Committee at Annexure–E is held to have become infructuous in view of subsequent recommendation made by Advisory Board.

(iii) The respondent No.3/Committee is hereby directed to consider the recommendation made by the Advisory Board in respect of the petitioners for premature release, strictly in accordance with law and the applicable remission policy, and take an appropriate decision, as expeditiously as possible.

(iv) Pending such consideration, respondent No.4 is directed to release the petitioners on parole, subject to such conditions as may be imposed in accordance with the governing rules.

(v) During the period of parole, the petitioners/convicts shall maintain good conduct and shall not indulge in any criminal activity or involve themselves in any offence, much less offences of a similar nature.

(vi) The petitioners shall scrupulously comply with all conditions imposed by the jail authorities and shall keep concerned authorities informed of their whereabouts, as and when required.

(vii) It is made clear that any violation of the conditions of parole shall entail cancellation of parole forthwith, in accordance with law.

Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 949 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: 1. CHAYA @ SOMA @ RAJESH CTP-8841 S/O RAVI, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O CENTRAL PRISON PARAPPANA AGRAHARA, BENGALURU KARNATAKA - 560 100. 2. ANANDA S/O RAVI, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O CENTRAL PRISON PARAPPANA AGRAHARA, BENGALURU KARNATAKA - 560 100. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SIRAJUDDIN AHMED, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA HOME DEPARTMENT, THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA NC:(2026:KHC:23633( WP(No.(949(of(2026( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( VIDHANA,SOUDHA,,, BENGALURU,-,560,001., , 2., THE,DIRECTOR,GENERAL,OF,POLICE, PRISONS,AND,, CORRECTIONAL,SERVICES,,, SHESHADRI,ROAD,,, BENGALURU,-,560,001., , 3., THE,LIFE,CONVICTS,, RELEASE,COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED,BY,ITS,CHAIRMAN, AND,PRINCIPAL,SECRETARY,,, HOME,DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA,SOUDHA,,, BENGALURU,-,560,001., , 4., CHIEF,SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL,PRISON,, BANGALORE,-560,100., , …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.,VIKAS,ROJIPURA,,AGA), , , THIS, WP, IS, FILED, UNDER, ARTICLES, 226, AND, 227, OF, THE,CONSTITUTION,OF,INDIA,PRAYING,TO,QUASH,AND,SET, ASIDE, THE, PROCEEDINGS, OF, THE, LIFE, CONVICTS, RELEASE, COMMITTEE,DATED,09.07.2025,(ANNEXURE-E),AND,ETC.,, , , THIS, PETITION,, COMING, ON, FOR, PRELIMINARY, HEARING,,THIS,DAY,,ORDER,WAS,MADE,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, , CORAM:, ,HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,SACHIN,SHANKAR,MAGADUM, , , ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel appearing for petitioners–convicts and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. Perused the material on record, including the proceedings of the Life Convicts Release Committee dated 09.07.2025 produced at Annexure–E. 2. The petitioners, who are convicts undergoing life imprisonment pursuant to the judgments and orders of conviction rendered in S.C.Nos.272/2008, 83/2009 and 148/2009, have approached this Court calling in question the proceedings of the Life Convicts Release Committee dated 09.07.2025. The principal relief sought is for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.1 to 4 to consider and grant premature release to the petitioners in terms of the remission policy prevailing as on the date of their conviction. A further consequential prayer is made seeking a direction to respondent No.4 to enlarge the petitioners on parole pending final decision of the Government on the question of premature release. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that both petitioners have undergone incarceration for more than 18 years and have thus become eligible for consideration of premature release under the applicable remission policy. It is contended that the impugned proceedings of the Committee rejecting or deferring such consideration are arbitrary and contrary to the settled principles governing remission and premature release. 4. Per contra, learned AGA, on instructions, submits that subsequent to the impugned proceedings, the Advisory Board has re-examined the cases of both the petitioners and has now recommended their cases for premature release. It is further submitted that the said recommendation of the Advisory Board is presently pending consideration before respondent No.3/Committee and appropriate decision would be taken in accordance with law. 5. In the light of the categorical submission made by the learned AGA that the Advisory Board has already reconsidered the petitioners' cases and recommended them for premature release, this Court is of the view that the challenge to the earlier proceedings dated 09.07.2025 at Annexure–E does not survive for consideration and the same is rendered infructuous. However, the petitioners cannot be left remediless, particularly when recommendation in their favour is pending consideration before the competent authority. 6. Having regard to the fact that the petitioners have already undergone substantial period of incarceration and in view of the favourable recommendat