IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(PIL) No.6651 of 2025 -----

Court on its Own Motion Versus The State of Jharkhand and others … … Respondents -----

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI -------

For the Resp.-State : Mr. Shray Mishra, AC to AG For the Resp.-High Court of Jharkhand : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate -------

Order No.5/Dated: 10 ^th December, 2025

1. In pursuance of order dated 27.11.2025, counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. It has been stated therein, by way of a tabular chart, as reflected in paragraph no. 8 to the counter-affidavit regarding number of released prisoners, physical verification of released prisoners, total number of prisoners benefitted from different government’s schemes and total number of released prisoners who died, for the reference the tabular chart as reflected in paragraph no.8 to the counter-affidavit is being reproduced herein under:

Number of Released Prisoners 670 Physical verification of released prisoners 558 Total number of prisoners benefitted from 470 different Govt. schemes Total number of released prisoners who 41 died

2. The figure shown in the aforesaid tabular chart is of the year 2019. It has been stated that the released inmates have been availing various government schemes, such as, Old Age Pension Scheme, Widow Pension Scheme and Ayushmaan Card etc.

3. The Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph no.21(g) as referred in order dated 18.2.2025 passed in Suo Motu Writ Petition (CRL.) No. 4 of 2021, while issuing direction has specifically directed the concerned State Government to consider cases of all convicts for grant of premature release as and when they became eligible for consideration in terms of the policy. The aforesaid direction clarifies that the meeting is to be conducted by the government periodically so that the cases of one or other inmates be considered.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that the amended policy decision dated 17^th October, 2013 has also been appended with the supplementary counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State, as per which, the State of Jharkhand has also constituted a State Sentence Review Board. It has been stated in the policy decision that the State Sentence Review Board is to convene the meeting at least at the interval of three months with the chairman of the Board who happens to be the Home Minister of the State.

5. The affidavit which has been filed by the State, however, does not reflect the compliance of the policy decision wherein meeting should be conducted in the interval of three months. The learned State counsel submitted that he will seek instruction on the issue and further additional affidavit shall be filed.

6. Paragraph no.9 of the order dated 27.11.2025 passed by this court shows that the learned State counsel has submitted that the State Government is convening meeting of the Committee in the light of the policy decision dated 26.5.2011, regularly, but the fact about the meeting is being conducted at the interval of at least three months, has not been stated in the affidavit.

7. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the High Court of Jharkhand has submitted that the aforesaid affidavit must disclose the number of prisoners who became eligible for consideration of the remission and, out of which, how many have actually been considered and what is its effect.

8. Let the aforesaid fact be also brought on record in the additional affidavit.

9. It has been informed to this Court by the Court Master that the JHALSA has been impleaded as party to the proceeding, as respondent No.26 as per case details obtained through the Court Information System (CIS). The office note dated 28.11.2025 shows that the order dated 27.11.2025 has been communicated to the Member Secretary, JHALSA but no endeavour to that effect has been taken by the office rather only the necessary addition has been made in the CIS without incorporatin