Sandeep Kumar, J.—Heard the parties.

2. By way of this writ application the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:—

(i) For Issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of CERTIORARI for quashing the decision of the State Remission Board dated 12.09.2023 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 interalia on the ground that under clause (iv) (ka) and (kha) of notification No. 3106 dated 10.12.2002 the petitioner is not eligible for grant of pre-mature release.

(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding and directing the Respondent Authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for pre-mature release and release him in connection with Sessions Trial No. 55 of 2006 arising out of Fulwaria P.S. Case No. 1 of 2006 on the ground that now the petitioner has already completed more than 22 years of sentence with remission and more than 17 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 10.4.2006 and the notification no. 3106 dated 10.12.2002 came into force with effect from 2.7.2007.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of his application for early release as he has completed 19 years in actual imprisonment.

4. The petitioner was convicted under section 364, 302, 201 of the Indian penal Code and were sentenced to death by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Gopalganj in Sessions Trial No. 55 of 2006 arising out of Phulwari P.S. Case No. 1 of 2006 vide Judgement dated 05.04.2006 and order on the point of sentence dated 10.04.2006. Subsequently, this court in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 329 of 2006 had commuted the death sentence of the petitioner to life imprisonment.

5. The petitioner had previously approached this court through Cr.W.J.C. No. 103 of 2022, for pre mature release after completing 14 years of actual imprisonment and the same was disposed vide order dated 18.07.2023. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid order read as under:—

“8. From perusal of the impugned order of the State Remission Board dated 19.05.2021 so far as it relates to the petitioner, it transpires that the proposal of premature release of the petitioner has been rejected by merely quoting the provisions of Clause IV (d) of the Remission Policy and no further reasons have been assigned by the Board as to how the nature of offences committed by the petitioner comes under the purview of any other offence having similar effect of rape, dacoity and terrorist acitivites and as such is covered under Clause IV (d) of the Remission Policy. The impugned order is cryptic and non-speaking in nature, as such, in my opinion, the same is not sustainable under the law.

9. Accordingly, the impugned order of State Remission Board dated 19.05.2021 so far as it relates to the petitioner is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the State Remission Board for reconsideration of the proposal of premature release of the petitioner, in accordance with law.

10. It is made clear that the proposal of premature release of the petitioner shall be considered and disposed by a reasoned order by the State Remission Board within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.”

6. The contention of the petitioner is that his case is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Ajit Kumar Mishra vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. (Cr.W.J.C. 1195 of 2021) [: 2023 (5) BLJ 83] and Pradeep Kumar Srivastava vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. (Cr.W.J.C. 453 of 2021) [: 2022 (2) BLJ 674].

7. Learned counsel for the State Mr. Prabhu Narayan Sharma, in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Ajit Kumar Mishra vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. and Pradeep Kumar Srivastava vs. The State of Bihar a