PARTHA SARTHY, J.:–Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has filed the instant writ application praying therein for quashing the decision of the State Remission Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Remission Board’) dated 19.11.2021 whereby and whereunder the Remission Board has pleased to rejected the proposal for premature release of the petitioner on the ground that he has not been found eligible in terms of the notification bearing memo no.3106 dated 10.12.2002 of the Home (Special) Department, Government of Bihar communicated to the petitioner vide order contained in letter no. 11740 dated 19.11.2021.

3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that he was convicted vide judgment dated 17.9.2008 passed in Sessions Trial no. 816 of 2005 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge III, Patna under Sections 364, 364A, 34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and by order dated 16.10.2008 sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. It is submitted that the petitioner is a first offender and has served more than 20 years 3 months including the period of remission till 14.2.2021 and has served actual physical custody of more than 15 years till 19.3.2020. The character of the petitioner was found to be satisfactory in the report of the Jail Superintendent and the Probation Officer also recommended for his release.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in cases similar to that of the petitioner, the Remission Board has considered the cases favorably, however, by order dated 19.11.2021, the Remission Board rejected the proposal for premature release of the petitioner which was communicated to the petitioner through the Superintendent of the Jail vide letter dated 19.11.2021. It is further submitted that so far as notification no.3106 dated 10.12.2002 is concerned, the same was wrongly relied upon by the Remission Board in case of the petitioner as it was for the first time given effect to with retrospective effect vide memo no. 2214 dated 9.4.2018 and before that the same it was not workable. Relying on the judgment in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Jagdish [(2010) 4 SCC 216] it was submitted that the policy as existing on the date when a person is convicted would only be applicable and thus the instant policy as contained in notification no.3106 dated 10.12.2002 not being in existence on the date of conviction of the petitioner, the same has wrongly been applied in the petitioner’s case. Thus, it is submitted that the order impugned i.e. the decision of the Remission Board dated 9.11.2021, impugned herein be set aside and consequential order of release of the petitioner be passed.

5. The case of the respondents is that the petitioner was convicted by judgment dated 17.9.2008 passed in Sessions Trial no. 819 of 2005 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge III, Patna under sections 364A, 365, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. On his having completed 14 years of actual custody and 20 years of custody with remission, the proposal of the petitioner was put up for consideration before the Remission Board which in its meeting dated 27.8.2021 rejected the case of the petitioner in light of clause 14(ka) of the notification no.3106 dated 10.12.2002. It is submitted that clause (iv)(ka) of notification dated 10.12.2002 states that prisoners convicted of heinous offences such as rape, dacoity, terrorist crimes etc are considered not eligible for premature release. Further the Remission Board having taken the stand that the offence of kidnapping for ransom is as serious as the offences mentioned in clause (iv)(ka) of notification dated 10.12.2002, rightly rejected the proposal of the petitioner for his premature release. It is submitted that the case of the petitioner has correctly been considered and rejected by the Remission Board and there being no merit in the instant appeal, the same be dismi