IMPORTANT POINT
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.

JUDGMENT :

RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.

1. This writ petition was initially preferred seeking quashing of the decision contained in Memo No. 11911 dated 20.10.2022 issued under the signature of respondent no. 2 whereby and whereunder the application filed by the father of the petitioner to review/reappraisal of the decision of the respondent no. 3 i.e. the State Sentence Remission Board (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Remission Board’) has been rejected saying that since the decision has already been taken by the Remission Board, there is no occasion for him to interfere in the matter.

Brief Facts of the Case

2. It appears from the records that the petitioner in this case has been found guilty of committing crime under Section 364A/120B, 302/34 and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’). The learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court has held that the charge of conspiracy in relation to offence under Section 364A read with Section 120B IPC has been found proved beyond all reasonable doubts against this petitioner. In paragraph ‘59’ of its judgment, the learned trial court has held that the victim boy identified the co-accused Sanjay @ Pandit and being afraid of it, they planned to kill the said boy. Accordingly, they took the boy under a ‘Pulia’. There, the accused Chintoo Singh killed the boy in a most barbaric manner and his dead body was recovered by police of Fakuli O.P. They committed this murder after they realised the ransom amount.

3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has remained in incarceration for more than 14 years in actual and more than 20 years with remission. His application for premature release in terms of Government’s policy was considered by the Remission Board, the same did not find favour and it was rejected in the meeting held on 19.05.2021. The Remission Board held 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. The decision of the Remission Board contains an observation from the judgment of the learned trial court wherein it has been inter-alia recorded that the convict has committed murder of informant’s minor son aged about 5 years in most barbaric manner and even after committing murder of the said boy, even as they realised ransom from the informant and as such, the case falls within the ambit of rarest of the rare cases.

Remission Board’s Decision during Pendency of the Writ Petition.

4. It further appears that during pendency of the writ petition, the Remission Board once again took up the case of the petitioner for consideration. This time, the Remission Board in its meeting held on 24.04.2023 (Annexure ‘7’ to the I.A. No. 01 of 2023) observed that the report of the Superintendent of Police is adverse. It is further recorded that the case of the petitioner would be covered by clause (iv) ¼d½ of Notification No. 3106 dated 10.12.2002 as the petitioner is guilty of committing murder of 5 years old son of the informant in a planned manner, he would not be entitled to get premature release. The decision of the Remission Board taken in its meeting held on 20.04.2023 has been challenged by filing I.A. No. 01 of 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the impugned decision’). The said Interlocutory Application No. 01 of 2023 has been allowed. The State was given an opportunity to file an additional counter affidavit and accordingly, an additional counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State whereafter the matter has been heard at length.

Submissions of the Petitioner

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned decision as contained in Annexure ‘7’ on the ground that the adverse report of the Superintendent of Police has been taken into consideration by the Remission Board without looking into the guidelines given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rajo @ Rajwa @ Rajendra Mandal Vs. State of Bihar and others, 202