- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16056 WP No. 5402 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 5402 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: SANTU @ SANTHOSH @ SANTHOSH POOJARY CTP 13058 AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, C/O KRISHNA POOJARY R/A HOUSE NO 06/129, N DEVIPRASAD, KUNTALAPADI MANE, GUDDEANGADI, BOMMARABETTU, PO GUDDEANGADI, DISTRICT: UDUPI, KARNATAKA-576113, SERVING SENTENCE AT BELLARI CENTRAL PRISON …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SIRAJUDDIN AHMED., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001 2. THE CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON, BELLARI-583101 Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16056 WP No. 5402 of 2026 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF KARNATAKA PRISON AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, SHEHSHADRI ROAD BENGALURU-560001 4. THE ADVISORY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, KARNATAKA PRISON AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, BENGALURU-560100 5. THE LIFE CONVICTS RELEASE COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, BENGALURU-560001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.P. YOGANNA, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE IMPUGNED PROCEEDINGS OF ADVISORY BOARD AND LCRC DATED 09.07.2025 PRODUCED AS ANNX-G STRICTLY IN TERMS OF THE PREMATURE RELEASE POLICY HD 125 PAR 2025 (BA-1) WHICH WAS IN FORCE ON THE DATE OF CONVICTION OF PETITIONER AND DIRECT THE R1-5 TO RELEASE THE COVICT SANTU/ SANTOSH @ SANTOSH POOJARY, CTP 13058 TILL THE FINAL DECISION IS TAKEN FOR PREMATURE RELEASE BY THE R1-5 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16056 WP No. 5402 of 2026 ORAL ORDER Captioned petition is filed by a convict, who is undergoing sentence of imprisonment pursuant to conviction in a murder case, seeking a direction for remission and premature release by challenging the proceedings of Advisory Board and LCRC dated 9.7.2025. 2. The facts leading to the case are as under: The petitioner contends that he has undergone a substantial period of incarceration in connection with a conviction for the offence of murder and, therefore, claims entitlement to be considered for premature release in terms of the Remission Policy formulated by the State Government. It is further contended that though several other criminal cases are pending against the petitioner, the details of which are furnished in paragraph 6 of the writ petition, the Advisory Board has failed to properly advert to the length of sentence already undergone by the petitioner while considering his case. On this premise, the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16056 WP No. 5402 of 2026 petitioner questions the rejection of his claim for remission by the Advisory Board, as reflected in the proceedings impugned at Annexure-“G”, contending that the order is a non-speaking one and is arbitrary, thereby offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 3. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the claim of the petitioner was duly examined by the competent authority strictly in accordance with the guidelines issued by the State Government regulating remission and premature release of life convicts. He would submit that the policy expressly stipulates that convicts against whom other criminal cases are pending are not eligible to be considered for premature release. Since the petitioner himself has acknowledged the pendency of such criminal cases and has furnished the details thereof in paragraph 6 of the writ petition, the authorities were justified in declining to consider his case for premature release. On these grounds, he seeks dismissal of the writ petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16056 WP No. 5402 of 2026 4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the material placed on record, this Court has examined the records produced along with the petition. 5. Before adverting to the merits of the petitioner’s claim and examining the validity of the proceedings of the Advisory Board, this Court deems it appropriate to refer to the relevant guidelines issued by the State Government governing the consideration of remission and premature release of life convicts. The said guidelines read as under: "(viii) A criminal appeal pending in any Court or criminal case pending trial against the prisoner or fine amount imposed in conviction order is due" 6. On a plain reading of the aforesaid guideline, it is manifest that while framing the policy governing premature release of life convicts, the State has consciously incorporated conditions excluding those prisoners who are involved in other pending criminal - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16056 WP No. 5402 of 2026 proceedings. The object underlying such exclusion is self- evident. A convict who is involved in other criminal cases, particularly those relating to grave and heinous offences, cannot be readily treated as falling within the category of prisoners eligible for premature release. In such circumstances, the competent authority would be justified in forming an opinion that the prisoner does not satisfy the eligibility criteria contemplated under the policy. 7. The very object of premature release is to extend the benefit to those prisoners who have demonstrated genuine reformation during incarceration and whose release would not pose any threat to society. In the present case, the petitioner is undergoing sentence for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and, admittedly two other criminal cases are pending against him. In this factual backdrop, it requires to be noted that remission or premature release cannot be claimed as a matter of right by a convict. The power to grant remission is essentially an executive function falling - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16056 WP No. 5402 of 2026 within the domain of the competent authority under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). 8. It is a settled principle of law that consideration of premature release must strictly conform to the policy prevailing at the relevant point of time. Having regard to the guidelines extracted above and the admitted pendency of criminal cases against the petitioner, this Court is satisfied that the competent authority was justified in declining to consider the petitioner’s case for premature release. No ground is made out for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merits, stands dismissed. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2