IMPORTANT POINT
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 release under the Bihar Prison Manual and relevant notifications.

JUDGMENT :

RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.

1. This writ petition questions the legality and validity of the decision taken by the State Sentence Remission Board (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Board’) on 09.09.2022 in respect of the petitioner. By the said decision (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned order/decision’), the Board has rejected the proposal for premature release of the petitioner on the ground that the case of the petitioner would be covered under Clause (iv) ¼d½ of the Notification No. 3106 dated 10.12.2002 issued by the Home (Special) Department, Government of Bihar.

2. Upon setting aside of the impugned order/decision, the petitioner prays for commanding the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner afresh for premature release.

3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Patna on 17.09.2008 in Sessions Trial No. 816 of 2015 for the offence under Sections 364A/34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) and has been ordered to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/-as fine. The petitioner has also been convicted and sentenced under Section 365 IPC and he has been ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. Both the sentences are to run concurrently.

4. A perusal of the pleadings would show that the petitioner has suffered physical incarceration for about 16 years and with remission he has completed more than 21 years.

Case of the Petitioner

5. The case of the petitioner is that even though the Notification No. 3106 was issued on 10.12.2002 and published in the Gazette on 28.12.2002, the same was not implemented, it was not workable and the respondent authorities kept on following the 1984 Policy. It has been pleaded that in the case of Ram Chander V. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 SCC Online SC 500 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “the prerogative of the executive is subject to the rule of law and fairness in State action embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution”.... the power of remission cannot be exercised arbitrarily. The decision to grant remission should be informed, fair and reasonable”.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had earlier submitted an application before the competent authority for considering his case for premature release. The Probationary Officer vide Letter No. 261 dated 30.08.2021 also recommended for premature release of the petitioner on the basis that there is full possibility of rehabilitation of the petitioner with the help of villagers and relatives.

7. It is submitted that the Superintendent of Police, Patna as well as the Presiding Judge of the trial court recommended the case of the petitioner for premature release. After obtaining necessary recommendations from the prescribed authorities, the Jail Superintendent, Model Central Jail, Beur, Patna sent the proposal to the Board for consideration of the case of the petitioner for his premature release in connection with Session Trial No. 816 of 2002.

8. Learned counsel submits that for argument sake, the Clause (iv) ¼d½ of the Notification No. 3106 dated 10.12.2002 even if applied, the case of the petitioner would not be covered thereunder. The said Clause has been considered by this Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Srivastava @ Pradip Kumar Srivastava vs. State of Bihr and Ors. 2022 (1) PLJR 217. This would also be covered by a recent judgment of this Court in the case of Ajit Kumar Mishra Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. 2023 (5) BLJ 783.

9. Learned counsel submits that the Notification No. 3106 in its Clause (iv) ¼d½ read with ¼[k½ created an exception by listing the categories of convicts who would not be eligible to be considered for premature release. The categories of convicts covered under Section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘Cr.P.C.) have been substituted vide Amendment Notification No. 3194 dated 26.05.2016 which has brought about certain changes in the exception lis