ORDER :

SANGAM KUMAR SAHOO, CJ.

As per order dated 16.04.2026, Mr. Arvind Chaudhary, Additional Home Secretary, Government of Bihar and Mr. Pranav, Inspector General (Prisons), Bihar have appeared through virtual mode.

2. On 16.04.2026, we had passed the following order:

“4. From the submission made, it is not clear whether the application of the appellant, which was filed before the Board was rejected or it was deferred for consideration after 28.10.2029.

Let the learned State counsel obtain specific instruction in that respect.

5. XXX XXX XXX”

6. The learned counsel for the State shall examine whether in the Premature Release Policy or Rule formulated by the State Government, there is any provision for consideration of the case of such persons, who are physically unfit and suffering from various ailments and aged person, prior to the completion of actual period of detention of twenty years with remission.

7. The learned State counsel shall also apprise this Court on the next date as to how many cases of different convicts are pending for consideration for premature release before the Board; the date of application in such cases and the status of these applications and the period, if any, stipulated in the scheme of premature release or Rule for consideration of such application and any reason for delayed disposal of such application. The relevant policies/rules shall also be placed on the next date. The Inspector General (Prisons), Bihar shall appear virtually along with Home Secretary, Government of Bihar to answer our queries.

8. XXX XXX XXX

9. A detailed affidavit regarding pendency of the applications for premature release, as noted above, shall be filed in the meantime, which would be duly sworn by a responsible officer of the State.”

3. In pursuance of the order of this Court, two supplementary counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondent State. The first affidavit has been filed by one Rajiv Kumar, A.I.G., Prisons and Correctional Department (Home), wherein, it is stated as follows:

“4. That it is submitted that there is no clear mention in the Bihar Prison Manual 2012 and Home (Special) Department Notification No. 3106 dated 10/12/2002 for considering the pre-mature release of physically unfit and hospitalized life convict but eligibility for pre-mature release on the ground of his provided in Rule 483 to Rule 486 of Bihar Jail Manual 2012 and Clause (iii) (e) of Home (Special) Department Notification No.3106 dated 10/12/2002.”

4. In another supplementary counter affidavit, duly sworn by Rajiv Kumar, A.I.G. (R) Prisons and Correctional Services, Bihar, Patna, it is stated as follows:

“6. That it is stated that as to the query, "whether proposal of petitioner for his pre- mature release was deferred or rejected by Bihar State Sentence Remission Board in its earlier meeting," it is humbly submitted that by virtue of Rule 481 of Bihar Prison Manual, the proposal of petitioner for his pre-mature release was deferred by Remission Board in its meeting dated 13- 11-2025 but in the light of order of this Hon'ble court in instant appeal pre-mature release of petitioner was reconsidered by Bihar State Sentence Remission Board in meeting dated 21-04-2026 and it was rejected as the petitioner has not completed 20 years of incarceration together with remission.

While considering the pre-mature release of petitioner the Board confronted with a technical question that custody is the condition precedent to release whereas petitioner has already been set at liberty on bail.

7. That it is stated that as to the query, "is there any provision for pre-mature release of persons who are not able to work due to old age or disease" it is humbly submitted that Rule 483 of the Bihar Prison Manual, provides that;- When a convicted prisoner is in danger of death from sickness in the opinion of the Medical Officer, (not due to an infectious disease) with no hope of recovery within or outside the prison and it is considered desirable to allow su