ORAL ORDER

(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

13-05-2026 When the matter was taken up on 04.05.2026, after considering the affidavits filed by Rajiv Kumar, A.I.G. (R) Prisons and Correctional Services, Bihar, Patna as well as the submission of the learned Advocate General who placed relevant provisions of Rules 481, 482 and 483 of Bihar Prison Manual, 2012 (hereinafter ‘2012 Manual’), and further noting that the Bihar State Sentence Remission Board has observed that the premature release of the appellant would be considered only after completion of twenty years period with remission which would be on 28.10.2029, even if he had spent actual custodial period of 15 years, 7 months and 28 days as on 17.06.2025 and the further submission of the learned Advocate General that the case of the appellant does not fall within any of the exceptions mentioned in sub-clauses (a), (b) or (c) of clause (i) of Rule 481 of the 2012 Manual, we sought for a detailed affidavit as to why the case of the appellant was not considered despite his actual custody exceeding 15 years and the specific grounds for deferring consideration until 28.10.2029.

2. In pursuance of such order, Rajiv Kumar, A.I.G. (R) Prisons and Correctional Services, Bihar, Patna, has filed a counter affidavit dated 12.05.2026, wherein, it is stated as follows:-

“5. That as submitted in earlier supplementary counter affidavit filed through oath no. 13061 dated 30.04.2026, since petitioner has not completed 20 years of incarceration with remission which is a condition precedent for considering a proposal for premature release therefore his proposal was not considered for premature release.

Condition of completion of 20 years of incarceration with remission in cases of life imprisonment finds legal justification from section 57 of IPC (section 6 of BNS) which reads as; "In calculating fractions of terms of punishment, imprisonment for life shall be reckoned as equivalent to imprisonment for twenty years unless otherwise provided.

The humble attention of this Hon'ble court is required to be drawn towards the fact that in general the prisoners completing 14 years of actual incarceration simultaneously complete 6 years of remission based on their good behavior/conduct and the good behavior/conduct is the most important factor guarantying/certifying reintegration of a person languishing in jail for years together and therefore completion of 20 years with remission has been necessitated vide letter no. 550 dated 21.01.1984.”

3. After going through the affidavit, we are of the humble view that the explanation furnished in paragraph 5 justifying the refusal to consider the appellant’s premature release despite his completion of over 15 years of actual custody is entirely unacceptable. Reliance has been placed on Letter No. 550 dated 21.01.1984, which has been annexed as Annexure R/A to the counter affidavit. In view of the enactment of the 2012 Manual, the authority concerned should not have considered such a letter of the year 1984 to be a ground for either rejecting the case of the appellant, or in taking a decision to consider his case only after 28.10.2029.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. -Vrs.- Jagdish reported in (2010) 4 Supreme Court Cases 216 has observed that:-

“44. Liberty is one of the most precious and cherished possessions of a human being and he would resist forcefully any attempt to diminish it. Similarly, rehabilitation and social reconstruction of a life convict, as objective of punishment become of paramount importance in a welfare State. "Society without crime is a utopian theory." The State has to achieve the goal of protecting the society from the convict and also to rehabilitate the offender. There is a very real risk of revenge attack upon the convict from others. Punishment enables the convict to expiate his crime and assist his rehabilitation. The remission policy manifests a process of reshaping a person who, unde