- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19130 WP No. 8295 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.8295 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: SRI.DINESH S/O RAJU MOOLYA AGED 41 YEARS R/AT 8-179, KATTADABAILU HOUSE PADUKONAJE VILLAGE DAKSHINA KANNADA KARNATAKA-574227 THE PETITIONER IS THE BROTHER OF THE CONVICT PRISONER NO.8541 HARISH KULAL, WHO IS SERVING LIFE SENTENCE IN BENGALURU CENTRAL PRISON …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRADEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001 Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19130 WP No. 8295 of 2026 2. THE LIFE CONVICTS RELEASE COMMITTEE HOME DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE PRISONS & CORRECTIONAL SERVICES NO.9, SHESHADRI ROAD GANDHI NAGAR BENGALURU-560009 4. THE CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON PARAPPANA AGRAHARA BENGALURU-560100 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.P.YOGANNA, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO THE RESPONDENTS TO BE PLEASED TO ACT IN STRICT COMPLIANCE OF THE NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.HD 119 PRA 2018, BENGALURU, DATED 21.04.2020 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A AND BE FURTHER PLEASED TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE PRISONER NO.8541 HARISH KULAL S/O RAJU MOOLYA FOR PREMATURE RELEASE IN TERMS OF THE ANNEXURE-B BEARING NO./BCP/J3/728/2026 IN DATED 25.02.2026 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19130 WP No. 8295 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This matter is de-linked from W.P.No.36234/2025. 2. The petitioner, who is the brother of the detenue namely Harish Kulal s/o Raju Moolya, who is convicted in S.C.No.99/2011 and is undergoing sentence for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 376 of IPC. 3. The captioned writ petition is instituted invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner–detenue for premature release in terms of the recommendation made by the Advisory Board, as evidenced at Annexure–B. The petitioner further seeks a consequential direction to release the detenue on parole pending consideration of his case by the competent authority, contending that such interim relief is warranted in the interest of justice, equity and fair play. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19130 WP No. 8295 of 2026 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent–State. Perused the material on record with utmost care. The facts, which are not in serious dispute, indicate that the detenue stands convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and is presently undergoing sentence of imprisonment for life. It is also not in dispute that the detenue has undergone incarceration for a substantial period of 14 years and 6 months, thereby rendering him eligible for consideration of premature release in terms of the prevailing policy of the State. 5. The records further disclose that the detenue has submitted a representation seeking premature release. The Advisory Board, upon due consideration of the case of the detenue, has recommended and approved his case for premature release, which is evidenced at Annexure–B. However, the said recommendation is presently pending consideration before the respondent No.2 – Life Convicts - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19130 WP No. 8295 of 2026 Release Committee (LCRC), which is the competent authority to take a final decision in the matter. The grievance of the petitioner is essentially premised on the delay in consideration of the said recommendation, despite a favourable opinion rendered by the Advisory Board. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on an order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Venkatesh vs. State of Karnataka and others [W.P. No.17178/2025 dated 11.11.2025], wherein, under similar circumstances, this Court, taking note of the period of incarceration undergone by the detenue therein and the recommendation made by the Advisory Board, deemed it appropriate to direct release of the detenue on parole pending consideration of his case by the Life Convicts Release Committee. This Court finds that the facts of the present case stand on a similar footing, inasmuch as the detenue herein has undergone more than 14 years of incarceration and has secured a favourable recommendation from the Advisory Board. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19130 WP No. 8295 of 2026 7. Having regard to the consistent view taken by this Court in a catena of decisions, and taking note of the fact that the Advisory Board has already recommended the case of the present detenue for premature release, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of limited relief. The inaction on the part of the respondent–authorities in not expeditiously considering the recommendation of the Advisory Board cannot operate to the detriment of the detenue, particularly when he has already undergone a substantial portion of the sentence and has been found eligible for such consideration. 8. In that view of the matter, while this Court refrains from issuing any positive direction for premature release, which squarely falls within the domain of the competent authority, it deems it appropriate to direct the authorities to expedite the decision-making process. Further, in order to balance the equities and to ensure that the detenue is not subjected to undue hardship on account - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19130 WP No. 8295 of 2026 of administrative delay, this Court is of the considered view that the detenue deserves to be enlarged on parole pending such consideration, subject to appropriate conditions. 9. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed in part. (ii) Respondent No.2 – Life Convicts Release Committee is hereby directed to expedite and consider the recommendation made by the Advisory Board, as per Annexure–B, in accordance with law, within an outer limit of a reasonable period. (iii) Pending such consideration, respondent No.4 is directed to release the convict prisoner bearing No.8541, namely, Harish Kulal s/o Raju Moolya, on general parole, subject to usual terms and conditions, until a - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19130 WP No. 8295 of 2026 final decision is taken by respondent Nos.1 and 2 (LCRC). (iv) It is made clear that the release ordered herein is purely interim in nature and shall abide by the final decision to be taken by the Life Convicts Release Committee. (v) It is further made clear that the competent authority shall take an independent decision, uninfluenced by any observations made in this order, strictly in accordance with law. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0