##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1246 of 2022

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-193 Year-1988 Thana- ARWAL District- Jehanabad

======================================================

Lakshman Saw, Son of Late Bihari Saw, Resident of village - Bhadasi, P.S.

and District – Arwal.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna,

Old Secretariat, Patna. Bihar

2. The Principal Secretary, Ministry of Home, Government of Bihar, Patna.

Bihar

3. The State Sentence Remission Board through its Chairman, Government of

Bihar, Patna. Bihar

4. The Law Secretary-cum-Legal Remembrance, Department of Law, Govt. of

Bihar, Patna. Bihar

5. The Director General of Police, Government of Bihar, Patna. Bihar

6. The Director, Probation Services, Government of Bihar, Patna. Bihar

7. The Inspector General (Prison) and Jail Reforms, Government of Bihar,

Patna. Bihar

8. The Additional Director General of Police, Criminal Investigation

Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna Bihar

9. The Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Gaya. Bihar

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Manish Kumar No.2, Advocate

For the Respondent/s : Mr. Prabhu Narayan Sharma, AC to AG

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 29-01-2026

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for the State.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the

petitioner seeking following reliefs :

“(i) For quashing the order dated 05.03.2020

passed by the Bihar State Sentence Remission

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1246 of 2022 dt.29-01-2026

2/9

Board through its Chairman, Government of

Bihar, Patna (Respondent No.3), whereby and

where under the recommendation for pre-

mature release of the petitioner has been

rejected.

(ii) For issuance of direction to the respondent

authorities particularly the Remission Board to

consider the case of the petitioner for pre-

mature release as the petitioner has already

completed his custody more than 20 years

without remission.

(iii) And/or any other relief or reliefs to which

the petitioner may be found entitled to in

course of hearing of this writ application”.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the petitioner was an accused in Arwal P.S. Case No. 193 of

1988. He had been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge-

cum-Special Judge, TADA, Jehanabad under Section 3(3)(1) of

the TADA Act, 1987 and Sections 307/149, 302/149, 353/379 of

the Indian Penal Code and Sectiion 27 of the Arms Act vide

judgment of conviction dated 21.07.2003 passed in G.R. Case

No. 7/1992, arising out of Arwal P.S. Case No. 193 of 1988 and

has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life

with fine vide order of sentence dated 04.08.2003. Being

aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the petitioner

and other convicts filed Cr. Appeal Nos. 1285 of 2003 and 1297

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1246 of 2022 dt.29-01-2026

3/9

of 2003 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which came to be

dismissed vide judgment dated 02.04.2004. The learned counsel

further submits that after completion of required period of

incarceration for consideration of premature release, the

concerned respondent requested the prescribed authorities to

submit recommendations for premature release of the

petitioner. Thereafter, the Probation Officer, Jail Superintendent,

the Superintendent of Police and the Presiding Officer have

recommended the case of the petitioner for his premature

release. After obtaining the reports from all the prescribed

authorities, the Jail Superintendent sent the proposal of the

petitioner for his premature release to the Bihar State Sentence

Remission Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’). The

Board in its meeting dated 05.03.2020 rejected the proposal of

the petitioner for his premature release.

4. The learned counsel further submits that the Board

in a ro