The discretion to suspend or remit the sentence lies with the State Government, but the decision must be in accordance with the law and not arbitrary. The opinion of the Presiding Judge must fulfill the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Faisal Allam, learned counsel for the State.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the decision of the State Sentence Review Board dated 08.09.2021 issued under the signature of Joint Secretary to the Government, Home Prisons and Disaster Management Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, whereby, the claim for premature release of the petitioner was rejected. The further prayer is made for direction to release the petitioner.

3. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and he has been sentenced to under rigorous imprisonment for life by the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XIII, Dhanbad vide judgment dated 18.11.2003 along with other accused persons. He further submits that the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.43 of 2004 and the informant preferred Criminal Revision No.135 of 2004 for enhancement of sentence. The said criminal revision was allowed and the sentence against the petitioner was enhanced to death sentence. He also submits that thereafter the petitioner preferred S.L.P. (Criminal) No.3032-3033 of 2005 which was subsequently numbered as Criminal Appeal No.791-792 of 2005 and the death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment. He also submits that the petitioner is in custody for more than 26 years 02 months and 19 days as per calculation dated 03.11.2021 issued by the Superintendent, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Central Jail, Hazaribag. He submits that the petitioner was convicted in the year 2003 and the alleged crime was dated 14.04.2000. He submits that the State of Jharkhand has come forward with the new policy of remission on 18.04.2007 and earlier, the policy of 1984 was operative. He further submits that in the 1984 policy, the provisions were made that the convict will be entitled for his premature release after he completes 14 years from the date of conviction and he has completed 20 years including remission, which was also fortified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagirath v. Delhi Administration, reported in [(1985) 2 SCC 580]. He submits that the case of the petitioner is required to be considered in view of 1984 policy and in the impugned order, nothing has been disclosed under what policy, the case of the petitioner was considered and the said remission was rejected. He further submits that the Probation Officer, Home (Prisons), Dhanbad, Jharkhand gave report recommending that the petitioner may be given chance to lead a smooth life by considering his case for premature release, contained in Annexure-5 of the petition. He also submits that the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad vide letter dated 21.04.2020 requested the Superintendent, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Central Jail, Hazaribag to give report with regard to the petitioner. He further submits that vide letter dated 29.02.2020, the said Superintendent of Police opined for premature release of the petitioner and stated that by releasing the petitioner, there will be no disturbing law and order. He submits that the said letter is contained in Annexure-6/1 of the petition. He submits that the case of the petitioner was turned down only on the ground that the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge has expressed that the petitioner has been sentenced and if he will be released, wrong message in the society will go, which is not in accordance with law. He further submits that one coconvict, namely, Shiv Shankar Singh has been granted benefit of remission by the State Government and the case of the petitioner is on the similar footing as he was also convict for life. On these grounds, he submits that the rejection order may kindly be quashed and the petitioner may be directed to be released.

4. Per contra, Mr. Allam, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that now the points regarding premat