ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Prabhu Narayan Sharma, learned AC to AG for the State in both the writ applications.

2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, these two writ applications have been taken up together for consideration.

3. In Cr.W.J.C. No. 861 of 2021, there are three petitioners who are seeking quashing of the decision of Bihar State Remission Board (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Board’) taken on 05.03.2020 whereby and whereunder the Board has rejected the proposal for the pre-mature release of the petitioners.

4. The Board has rejected their cases for pre-mature release on the ground contained under Clause (IV) ([k) of the notification no. 3106 dated 10.12.2002 issued by the Home (Special) Department, Government of Bihar. The Board has also found that there was an adverse report of the Superintendent of Police and the Presiding Officer of the convicting court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has by filing I.A. No. 1 of 2021 made a prayer to quash the decision of the Board taken on 27.08.2021 and communicated under letter no. 9555 dated 18.11.2021 in so far as it relates to petitioner nos. 1 and 2 whereby and whereunder the Board has been pleased to reject the prayer of the petitioners for their pre-mature release inter-alia on the ground that under Clause IV ([k) of the Notification No. 3106 dated 10.12.2002. As regards, one of the petitioners i.e. petitioner no. 3 learned counsel has filed another interlocutory application being I.A. No. 2 of 2021 to challenge the decision dated 01.11.2021 by which the prayer of the petitioner no. 3 for pre-mature release has been rejected on similar consideration.

6. In Cr.W.J.C. No. 1310 of 2022, the sole petitioner has prayed for quashing of the decision of Board taken on 01.11.2021 and communicated to all concerned vide letter no. 4679 dated 21.04.2022 in so far as it relates to the petitioner whereby and whereunder the Board has rejected the proposal for pre-mature release of the petitioner in the light of the Clause IV ([k) letter no. 3106 dated 10.12.2002 which is said to have been published in the Gazette dated 28.12.2002.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ applications have assailed the impugned orders mainly on two grounds as under: –

(1) The Board is not justified in applying the 2002 policy in respect of these petitioners for the reason that admittedly the said policy has been implemented practically after 25.09.2007 and prior to this date the convicts similarly situated to the petitioners were considered under the 1984 policy. It is submitted that prior to 25.09.2007 several persons were released by the respondent authorities, therefore, following the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Cr.W.J.C. No. 748 of 2017 (Chandra Kant Kumar vs. The State of Bihar and Others) it was incumbent upon the Board to give similar treatment to these petitioners.

(2) It is further submitted that for any reason even if 2002 policy is applied against the petitioners, there being no finding of the learned Trial Court that the petitioners had committed the offence of murder in an organized manner with a pre-plan or in pre-meditated manner, the cases of these petitioners would not be covered under Clause (IV) ([k) of the notification no. 3106 of 2002.

8. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this court in Cr.W.J.C. No. 748 of 2017 as also a learned single judge judgment of this Court in Cr. W.J.C No. 236 of 2021 (Surendra Mahto vs. The State of Bihar and Others reported in 2021 (4) PLJR 393 [: 2021 (6) BLJ 271]). It is his submission that petitioners would also be entitled for consideration of their cases for pre-mature release on the ground of reverse discrimination. Learned counsel has relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. G. Sadasivan Nair vs. Cochin University of Science and Technology and Others reported in (2022)4 SCC 404 to sub