JUDGMENT :

(R.N. Laddha, J.)

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. Rule. The rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of and at the request of the learned counsel for the parties.

3. In all these matters, a common issue of law and fact arises. Therefore, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, these matters are disposed of by common judgment and order.

4. The Petitioners, the convicts sentenced to life imprisonment, question the State Government's order dated 10.05.2021 declining their premature release.

5. Though there was some variance between the submissions made by Mr. Shivraj Gaonkar and Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias, both submitted that the Sentence Review Board (Board) had correctly recommended the premature release of the Petitioners. They submitted that the Convicting Court's opinion dated 05.03.2021 did not consider all the required parameters, including the reformative aspect. They submitted that the State Government incorrectly felt bound by the Convicting Court's opinion when the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Chander Vs The State of Chhattisgarh & Anr., WP(Crl) No.49 of 2022 dated 22.04.2022, held that the appropriate Government should not mechanically follow the opinion of the Presiding Judge. Therefore, the impugned order is arbitrary and unreasonable because several relevant considerations have been ignored, and irrelevant considerations have been taken into account.

6. The learned counsel relied on (i) Sangeet and Anr. vs State of Haryana, (2013) 2 SCC 452, (ii) Ravi Patil vs State of Goa and Ors., WPCR No.110/2019 dt.24/11/2020, (iii) Ravi Patil vs State of Goa and Ors., WPCR No.110/2019 dt.13/09/2019, (iv) Dilip S. Shetye vs State Sentence Review Board and Ors., WPCR 225/2019 dt.06/11/2020, (v) State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) vs Prem Raj, (2003) 7 SCC 121, (vi) State of Punjab vs Kesar Singh, (1996) 5 SCC 495, (vii) Yovehel s/o Vijaykumar Gouri vs State of Maharashtra and Ors., 2020 (6) Mh.L.J. 571 (FB), (viii) Tarachand Kapari vs State of Bihar, 2016 SCC OnLine Pat 747, (ix) N. Sukumaran Nair vs Food Inspector, Mavelikara, (1997) 9 SCC 101, (x) Santosh Kumar vs Municipal Corporation and Anr., (2000) 9 SCC 151, (xi) Gopal Vinayak Godse vs State of Maharashtra and Ors., (1961) 3 SCR 440, (xii) Ramesh Lallu Jakhra vs State of Gujarat, (1989) 2 GLR 850, (xiii) Ram Chander vs The State of Chhattisgarh & Anr., WP (Crl) No. 49/2022, (xiv) Laxman Naskar vs Union of India & Ors., (2000) 2 SCC 595, (xv) Satish alias Sabbe vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 791, (xvi) Nainaram & Anr. vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr., 1986 SCC OnLine MP 135, (xvii) Rajan vs Home Secretary, 2019 (14) SCC 114, (xviii) Destruction of Public & Private Properties, In Re. vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., (2009) 5 SCC 212, (xix) Sunil Fulchand Shah vs Union of India and Ors., (2000) 3 SCC 409, (xx) Avtar Singh vs State of Haryana & Anr., (2002) 3 SCC 18, (xxi) Mohd. Azam Aslam Butt vs State of Maharashtra, 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 4947, (xxii) Jaya Talakhsi Chheda vs State of Maharashtra, 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 8907 and (xxiii) Gajja Ram @ Gajendra vs State of Rajasthan & Ors., D.B. Crl. Ref. No.1/2021 dt.26-08-2021, in support of their contentions.

7. Mr. Faldessai learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Mr. Deepak Gaonkar, appearing for the father of the victim who was kidnapped and murdered by the Petitioners, contested the contentions of the learned counsel for the Petitioners. They submitted that the records, in this case, clearly reveal that the Petitioners had not suffered 14 years of "actual imprisonment" and, therefore, in terms of Section 433-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, there was no question of their premature release.

8. They submitted that most of the Petitioners had spent a little over two years on Parole and around two months on furlough. Most of the Petitioners had also earned remissio