ORDER

Heard Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prabhu Narayan Sharma, learned AC to AG for the State.

2. The petitioner in the present case is seeking the following reliefs:—

“That, this is an application for issuance of a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions for quashing the order of the Sentence Remission Board dated 27.08.2021 communicated vide letter No. 9555 dated 17.11.2021, whereby recommendation for remission of sentence of the petitioner has been rejected and further a direction to the respondent authorities to grant remission/premature release to the petitioner, who has been sentenced to death vide judgment dated 07.08.2007 passed in Sessions Trial No. 1602 of 2005 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Patna. However, the Hon’ble High Court in Death Reference No. 07 of 2007 along with analogous appeals i.e. Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1216 of 2007 and others was pleased to modify the sentence to imprisonment for life so far it relates to petitioner and acquitted all other co-convicts from the charges and since the petitioner is in jail since 21.09.2004 and he has completed 20 years in jail with remission on 20.06.2021 still he has not been considered for premature release.”

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in this case, the State Remission Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’) has rejected the proposal for pre-mature release of the petitioner on a completely misconceived ground.

4. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the charge against the petitioner of kidnapping for ransom could not be established in final conclusion before the Hon’ble Division Bench of the High Court in Death Reference No. 7 of 2007. In paragraph ‘30’ thereof has been placed before this Court.

5. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner was convicted under Section 302/34 IPC and in similar situation one Karu Mahto has been earlier ordered to be released by the Board. The case of the petitioner has been wrongly distinguished by the Board in order to debar him from the privilege of pre-mature release. Learned Senior Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court towards the statements made in paragraph ‘11’ of the writ application which has been sought to be answered by the State in paragraph ‘22’ of the counter affidavit.

6. Mr. Prabhu Narayan Sharma, learned AC to AG for the State has gone through the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court and after going through paragraph ‘30’ thereof, learned AC to AG agrees that the charge against the petitioner for ransom could not be established.

7. This Court has heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned AC to AG for the State as also perused the records. The decision of the Board as respect this petitioner may be found in Annexure ‘1’ to the writ application. It appears on perusal of the decision of the Board that the case of the petitioner was being considered under a wrong notion that he has been convicted for the offences under Sections 364(A)/302, 201, 120B read with 34 IPC. As noted hereinabove, learned counsel for the State has accepted at the Bar that the charge against the petitioner for ransom could not be established. A copy of the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench in Death Reference No. 7 of 2007 has been placed. Paragraph ‘30’ of the Hon’ble Division Bench’s judgment reads as under:—

“30. The aforesaid facts coupled with lack of any explanation by the said two accused as to how they could know the facts disclosed by them leading to recovery of incriminating materials, in my view are sufficient to establish the charge under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code against appellants Sunny @ Sunny Deol and Ravindra Kumar @ Ravindra Kumar Singh beyond any reasonable doubts. However, the charge of kidnapping for ransom or conspiracy has not been proved beyond reasonable doubts.”

8. Further, this Court finds that the Hon’ble Division Bench ultimately held that the offence in qu