Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.
Md. Allauddin Ansari @ Allauddin Ansari – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.861 of 2021, Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1310 of 2022
Decided on : 22-12-2022
Remission Board - Quashing of decision - Notification No. 3106 dated 10.12.2002 - Judgment of Hon’ble Division Bench in Cr.W.J.C. No. 748 of 2017 - Judgment of learned single judge in Cr. W.J.C No. 236 of 2021 - Judgment of 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 - Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Chander Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh and Another reported in (2022) SCC Online SC 500
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought quashing of the decision of Bihar State Remission Board rejecting their proposal for pre-mature release based on Clause IV ([k) of the notification no. 3106 dated 10.12.2002. The petitioners argued that the 2002 policy should not be applied to them as it was implemented after 25.09.2007 and that they should be treated under the 1984 policy. They also contended that their cases did not meet the criteria under Clause (IV) ([k) of the 2002 notification. The State opposed the writ applications, asserting that the 2002 policy applied to the petitioners and that their cases were covered under Clause (IV) ([k).
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the 2002 policy was not implemented prior to 25.09.2007 and that similarly situated co-convicts were granted benefit under the 1984 policy. The Court directed the Remission Board to consider the petitioners' cases for pre-mature release in line with the judgments in Cr.W.J.C. No. 748 of 2017 and Cr. W.J.C No. 236 of 2021. The Court also referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. G. Sadasivan Nair vs. Cochin University of Science and Technology and Others and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Chander Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh and Another.
Issues: Application of the 2002 policy, entitlement for pre-mature release, reverse discrimination, and the significance of the date of publication of the policy.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the petitioners should be considered under the 1984 policy as the 2002 policy was not implemented prior to 25.09.2007 and similarly situated co-convicts were granted benefit under the 1984 policy. The Court also emphasized the need for uniform application of policy and the importance of reasonable classification in decision-making.
Final Decision: The impugned orders were set aside, and the State Remission Board was directed to convene a meeting within one month to consider the cases of the petitioners for pre-mature release.
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:-
(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). 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. Coc
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for uniform application of policy and the importance of reasonable classification in decision-making.
The denial of premature release based on misapplied guidelines is arbitrary and discriminatory, necessitating a reassessment by the Remission Board.
The decision of the State Sentence Remission Board must be informed, fair, and reasonable, adhering to the principles of law and precedents, particularly regarding the eligibility for premature relea....
Convicts guilty of planned murder, especially of minors, are ineligible for premature release under the provisions of Notification No. 3106 and Rule 481 of the Bihar Jail Manual.
The court established that the Remission Board must not solely rely on police reports when considering premature release applications, but should evaluate the convict's overall rehabilitation and pot....
The policy in effect at the time of conviction must be the primary consideration for determining premature release, unless a more liberal policy is subsequently adopted.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
