Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J. – The petitioner in this writ application has completed more than 20 years with remission and about 17 years of actual incarceration after having been convicted under Sections 364A/34, 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code in Session Trial No. 183 of 2003 arising out of Brahmpura (Muzaffarpur) P.S. Case No. 20 of 2003. He is aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the decision of the Bihar State Sentence Remission Board (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Board’ or ‘Remission Board’) taken in its meeting held on 23.12.2020 whereby the Board has rejected the proposal for premature release of the petitioner. The petitioner is praying for setting aside of the decision of the Board and issuance of a direction commanding the Board to consider the case of the petitioner afresh for premature release.

Case of the Petitioner

2. In the writ application filed in the year 2021, it is the case of the petitioner that after completion of more than 21 years with remission and about 15 years of actual physical incarceration, the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Bhagalpur being satisfied with the good conduct and law abiding behaviour of the petitioner sought opinions from the concerned authorities in the matter of premature release of the petitioner.

3. It is stated that on the direction of the Jail Superintendent, Bhagalpur, the Principal Probation Officer, Muzaffarpur conducted an inquiry and submitted his report to the respondent no. 8 vide letter no. 289 dated 06.08.2020 whereby and whereunder he reported that the petitioner may be rehabilitated and there would be no problem in his rehabilitation after his release. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur also obtained a report from the Additional Superintendent of Police and he being satisfied with the opinion of the general people concluded that there would be no law and order issue as a consequence of premature release of the petitioner.

4. It is further stated that the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur being the trial court who had convicted the petitioner also submitted its opinion vide letter no. 258 dated 09.09.2020 (Annexure ‘3’). In his opinion, the learned Presiding Judge referred the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. V. Sriharan @ Murugan and Others reported in (2016) 7 SCC 1 and concluded that the Court would have no objection if the petitioner is released in accordance with the Jail Manual.

5. It is stated that the Board has been constituted vide notification dated 09.04.2018 issued by the Inspectorate of Prisons and Correctional Services, Government of Bihar (Annexure ‘4’ to the writ application) and it was given validity with retrospective effect from 10.12.2002. According to Annexure ‘4’, the Board shall recommend the premature release of the life convict prisoners under the provisions of the Home Department State Notification No. ds@fofo/k 63 /2001-3106 dated 10.12.2002 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘notification’ or ‘Remission Notification’). As stated above, the Board considered the case of the petitioner but rejected the same on the ground that his case would be covered under the exception clause (iv) (d) of the Remission Notification. Thus, the petitioner has been held not eligible for premature release.

6. Referring to the impugned decision of the Board, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that clause (iv) ¼d½ of the Remission Notification would not take within its ambit the case of the petitioner and at the same time, the Board has no authority of law to extend the scope of clause (iv) ¼d½ on its own without there being any statutory nature of classification of the offences and a guideline to that effect having statutory flavour.

7. It is submitted that a case of conviction under Section 364A/34, 302/34 and 201/34 has not been specifically mentioned in the clause (iv) ¼d½ of