The rejection of a prisoner's remission request based solely on a police report, without considering other evaluations, violates statutory guidelines and judicial standards for assessing eligibility for premature release.

JUDGMENT :

ARUN KUMAR JHA, J.

I.A.No.01 of 2025

1. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. This interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer to amend the writ petition and treat the facts mentioned in this application to be a part of the main writ application.

3. In the light of averment made in this interlocutory application, the same is allowed and the averments made in this interlocutory application will be treated as part of the main writ petition.

Cr.W.J.C.No.876 of 2024

4. Initially, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs :

“A. A writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order/orders, direction quashing the followings :-

(i) The order issued by deputy Inspector General of Police, Prison and Reform Services, Bihar, Patna, communicating recommendation of Bihar Remission Board in compliance with the order passed in Cr.W.J.C. No. 964 of 2022, rejecting the proposal for premature release of the petitioner accompanied with the letter bearing no. 1397 dated 15.02.2024, issued by deputy Inspector General of Prison and Reform services Bihar, Patna, addressed to all the concerned authority.

B. A writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order/orders, direction commanding the respondents for the followings:-

(i) To consider the case of the petitioner afresh case for grant of remission and his forthwith release, as he was rotting in jail since 14.11.2006 (except availing of provision bail from 11.02.10 to 18.10.10).

C. To any other relief/s to which the petitioner is found entitled to :-”.

5. Now, by way of amendment, the petitioner has also sought for quashing of the resolution/decision dated 27.11.2023 of the State Remission Board (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Board’) whereby and whereunder the proposal for premature release of the petitioner has been rejected.

6. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an accused in Banka P.S. Case No. 341 of 2006 registered under Sections 302 /34 of the I.P.C. and Section 3 /4 of the Explosive Substances Act. He has been convicted by the learned Presiding Officer of Fast Track Court No. II, Banka vide judgment of conviction dated 16.06.2009 passed in Sessions Trial No. 975 of 2007 under /34 of the I.P.C. and Section ¾ of the Explosive Substance Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life vide order of sentence dated 19.06.2009. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the petitioner filed Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 590 of 2009 before this Court, which upheld and confirmed the judgment and order of the learned trial court vide judgment dated 22.06.2015. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment dated 22.06.2015, the petitioner preferred S.L.P No. 2542 of 2016 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP filed by the petitioner and upheld the order of the learned trial court as well as of this Court.

7. The learned senior counsel further submits that the Board in a routine and mechanical manner, by just referring to the report of Superintendent of Police, Banka, rejected the proposal of premature release of the petitioner, though he had already completed more than 22 years in custody with remission.

8. The learned senior counsel further submits that it appears that the report of the Probation Officer is in favour of the petitioner. The report of Superintendent of Police, Banka shows that the petitioner, in case of release, would again indulge in murder and dacoity. Bu