IMPORTANT POINT
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 potential for reintegration into society.

JUDGMENT :

Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.

Heard Mr. Ratnakar Pandey, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. P.N. Sharma, learned AC to AG for the State.

2. This writ application has been filed for the following reliefs:-

“(I) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of CERTIORARI for quashing the decision of the State Remission Board dated 21.06.2019 so far it relates to the petitioner, whereby and whereunder the State Remission Board has been pleased to reject the proposal of the petitioner for his pre-mature release inter alia on the ground that under clause (iv)(kha) and (Gha) of Notification No. 3106 dated 10.12.2002 as also there is no favourable report of Superintendent of Police, the petitioner is not eligible for grant of pre-mature release.

(II) for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of MANDAMUS to consider the case of the petitioner for pre-mature release and release him in connection Sessions Trial No. 394 of 2002 arising out of Bihar P.S. Case No. 118 of 2001 on the ground that now the petitioner has already completed more than 21 years of sentence with remission and more than 16 years of his physical incarceration, taking into consideration that the case of the petitioner has been covered under 1984 Policy prevailing at the relevant time of his conviction since the petitioner was convicted on 23.04.2007 and the notification no. 3106 dated 10.12.2002 came into force with effect from on 02.07.2007 as held by this Hon’ble Court and all the prescribed Authorities recommended for his pre-mature release except Superintendent of Police.

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

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he having been convicted under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced for life has completed more than 20 years of incarceration with remission and more than 14 years of actual physical incarceration, still the Bihar State Sentence Remission Board (hereafter referred to as the ‘Board’) has rejected the proposal for premature release of the petitioner on the ground that there is no favourable report of the Superintendent of Police and his case would be covered under clause (iv)(kha) and (iv)(gha) of the Notification No. 3106 dated 10.12.2002.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Presiding Officer of the convicting trial court as well as the Probationary Officer have recommended vide letter No. 90/2019 dated 27.02.2019 and letter No. 16 dated 08.02.2019 respectively for premature release of the petitioner. During incarceration, his behaviour has been found satisfactory but the Superintendent of Police, Nalanda at Biharsharif did not recommend the premature release of the petitioner on the basis of the report of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during pendency of the writ application the Board once again considered the case of the petitioner for premature release in it’s meeting held on 20.04.2023 and this time the Board rejected his proposal for premature release on the solitary ground that the report of the Superintendent of Police is not favourable. In his report, he has referred the report of the Dy.S.P. saying that when the Dy.S.P. talked with some of the villagers in the village ‘Meyar’ and ‘Barhauna’, openly and confidentially, they informed that there is a sense of insecurity among the general people and in case of premature release of the petitioner there may be a law and order problem. The minute of the meeting of the Board dated 20.04.2023 has been challenged by filing I.A. No. 01/2023 which has been allowed by order dated 01.09.2023. Thus, the statements made in the interlocutory application and reliefs prayed therein form part and parcel of the writ application.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before this Court several judicial pronouncements to submit