Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years Retrospective Application of Amended Rules for Redeployment Declared Invalid: Orissa High Court NDPS Act Leaves No Room for Leniency: HC Requires Substantial Proof of Innocence for Bail No Protection Without Performance: MP High Court Denies Relief Under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act Delays in processing applications for premature release cannot deprive convicts of interim relief: Karnataka High Court Grants 90-Day Parole Listing All Appeals Arising From A Common Judgment Before The Same Bench Avoids Contradictory Rulings: Full Bench of the Patna High Court. Age Claims in Borderline Cases Demand Scrutiny: Madhya Pradesh HC on Juvenile Justice Act Bishop Garden Not Available for Partition Due to Legal Quietus on Declaration Suit: Madras High Court Exclusion of Certain Heirs Alone Does Not Make a Will Suspicious: Kerala High Court Upholds Validity of Will Proof of Delivery Was Never Requested, Nor Was it a Payment Precondition: Delhi High Court Held Courier Firm Entitled to Payment Despite Non-Delivery Allegations Widowed Daughter Eligible for Compassionate Appointment under BSNL Scheme: Allahabad High Court Brutality of an Offence Does Not Dispense With Legal Proof: Supreme Court Overturns Life Imprisonment of Two Accused Marumakkathayam Law | Partition Is An Act By Which The Nature Of The Property Is Changed, Reflecting An Alteration In Ownership: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claim | Compensation Must Aim To Restore, As Far As Possible, What Has Been Irretrievably Lost: Supreme Court Awards Rs. 1.02 Crore Personal Criticism Of Judges Or Recording Findings On Their Conduct In Judgments Must Be Avoided: Supreme Court Efficiency In Arbitral Proceedings Is Integral To Effective Dispute Resolution. Courts Must Ensure That Arbitral Processes Reach Their Logical End: Supreme Court Onus Lies On The Propounder To Remove All Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding A Will To The Satisfaction Of The Court: Calcutta High Court Deeds of Gift Not Governed by Section 22-B of Registration Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Testimony Of  Injured Witness Carries A Built-In Guarantee Of Truthfulness: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction for Attempted Murder POCSO | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Without Conclusive Proof Of Minority - Burden Lies On The Prosecution: Telangana High Court Credible Eyewitness Account, Supported By Forensic Corroboration, Creates An Unassailable Chain Of Proof That Withstands Scrutiny: Punjab and Haryana High Court Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail to Schizophrenic Mother Accused of Murdering Infant Son

Delays in processing applications for premature release cannot deprive convicts of interim relief: Karnataka High Court Grants 90-Day Parole

23 November 2024 1:29 PM

By: sayum


Karnataka High Court directed the release of Nagaraja, a life convict, on 90-day parole while his application for premature release awaited consideration by the state government. Justice Hemant Chandangoudar emphasized the need for timely action by the Premature Release Committee to prevent undue delays in processing such cases.

Nagaraja, convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and serving life imprisonment at the Central Prison, Bengaluru, petitioned for premature release under the 2020 notification issued by the Karnataka Home Department. The Advisory Committee recommended his case for release, and the Life Convicts Premature Release Committee subsequently forwarded the recommendation to the Governor of Karnataka. However, the final decision remained pending for an extended period.

Citing these delays, Nagaraja approached the High Court, requesting his release on parole until a decision was made on his application.

The Court highlighted the need for efficient decision-making in premature release cases, referring to the Supreme Court's judgment in Rashidul Jafar @ Chota v. State of Uttar Pradesh. In that case, the Apex Court directed that eligible convicts’ applications be expeditiously processed and prioritized based on age and health conditions. Justice Chandangoudar stated:

“Cases of life convicts eligible for premature release must be considered without delay. Prolonged inaction by the Premature Release Committee or administrative authorities cannot serve as a basis for continued incarceration.”

The Court further criticized the state government’s lack of urgency, noting:

“The failure of the Premature Release Committee to convene regular meetings leads to unnecessary litigation and administrative inefficiencies, denying convicts their legitimate rights under the applicable policies.”

The Court invoked precedents from the Apex Court and its own earlier rulings, underscoring the principle of parole as an interim relief in cases of administrative delay. Justice Chandangoudar directed:

“Until the Premature Release Committee convenes and decides the petitioner’s case, the petitioner is entitled to parole in accordance with the law. This ensures that convicts are not subjected to unwarranted deprivation of liberty while awaiting decisions on their applications.”

Granting the parole, the Court set the following terms:

Nagaraja will be released for 90 days, with the possibility of seeking an extension.

He must refrain from engaging in any criminal activities during the parole period.

Jail authorities will supervise his conduct and report any violations.

The Court also ordered that the parole directive be communicated immediately to the jail authorities to facilitate Nagaraja’s timely release.

This ruling reiterates the judiciary’s commitment to balancing the rights of convicts with the principles of justice and public administration. It serves as a reminder for state authorities to act promptly on applications for remission or premature release, preventing undue hardship and ensuring adherence to constitutional principles.

Date of Decision: November 21, 2024

 

Similar News