Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. Petitioner in the present case seeking the following reliefs: –

“(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the decision of State Remission Board dated 20.04.2023, so far it relates to the petitioner, whereby and where under the State Remission Board was pleased to reject the proposal of the petitioner for his premature release on the ground that there is no favourable report of the Presiding Officer of the learned convicting court.

(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus, commanding and directing the Respondent Authorities to grant premature release to the petitioner, who convicted for life vide judgment and order dated 11/12.08.2009 passed in Sessions Case No. 854 of 2005 arising out of Shikarpur P.S. Case No. 193 of 2005 by the learned 4th Additional District and sessions Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah on the ground that the petitioner had already completed 14 years of his physical incarceration on 10.10.2019 as also all the prescribed Authorities except the Presiding Officer of the Convicting Court had recommended for premature release of the petitioner.

(iii) For issuance of any other appropriate writ / writs, order / orders direction / directions for which the writ petitioners would be entitled under the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment and order dated 11/12.08.2009 passed by learned 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah in Sessions Trial No. 854 of 2005. It is submitted that the trial court judgment was affirmed by the Hon’ble High Court vide Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 905 of 2009. The trial court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment and a sum of Rs. 5000/- as fine upon the petitioner.

4. By virtue of Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure petitioner would be entitled to be considered for permature release in terms of government’s policy upon the completion of 14 years of actual incarceration and 20 years period with remission. In fact the case of the petitioner was considered by the State Remission Board (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Board’) for premature release in terms of statutory schemes but the proposal for premature release has been rejected by the Board on the solitary ground that the report of the learned Presiding Officer of the trial court was not favourable and the petitioner had been found guilty for murder of his wife.

5. Learned counsel submits with reference to the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in case of Ravi Pratap Mishra vs. State of Bihar and Ors. in Cr. WJC No. 272 of 2017 that despite an unfavourable report of the Presiding Officer, the Remission Board was obliged to apply it’s own mind and even in terms of the Bihar Prison Manual the said report alone would not have been a reason to refuse the premature release of the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel has further relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Chander vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. in Writ Petition (Crl) No. 49 of 2022 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has discussed in detail the statutory scheme under Sections 432 (2) and 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure with reference to the various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He has further relied upon a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajo @ Rajwa @ Rajendra Mandal vs. the State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1068 [: 2023 (6) BLJ 13 (SC)] (Writ Petition (Criminal) No(s).252/2023). It is submitted that in this case the Board has not followed the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court and has rejected the proposal for premature release of the petitioner in