PATNA, India, Oct. 6 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on Sept. 8:

I.A.No.01 of 2025 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. This interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer to amend the writ petition and the facts mentioned in this application should be treated to be a part of the main writ application.

3. In the light of averment made in this interlocutory application, the same is allowed and the averments made in this interlocutory application will be treated to be the part of the main writ petition.

Cr.W.J.C.No.2271 of 2024 4. Initially, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs :

"(a) For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No.6 to send his report/opinion regarding premature release of the petitioner after providing remission to respondent No. 7 who had requested the respondent No. 6 vide letter No. 9226 dated 23.12.2023, letter No. 1177 dated 09.02.2024 and letter No.6527 dated 13.08.2024.

(b) For issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 7 to send proposal before the respondent No.3 and 4 for premature release after remission in the light of Home (Spl.) department's notification No. 3106 dated 10.12.2002.

(c) For issuance of any other writ/writs, command/commands, direction/directions, order/orders as your lordships deem fit and proper in the facts of the instant case.

5. Now, by way of amendment, the petitioner sought for quashing of the resolution/decision dated 29.01.2025 of the State Remission Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') whereby and whereunder the proposal for premature release of the petitioner has been rejected.

6. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been convicted for the offences under Section 302 with allied sections of the Indian Penal Code after facing trial vide Sessions Trial No. 329 of 2009/ 304 of 2006 arising out of Atri P.S. Case No.15 of 2005 and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The learned senior counsel further submits that the Board in a routine and mechanical manner, by just referring to the report of Senior Superintendent of Police, Gaya, rejected the proposal of premature release of the petitioner, though he had already completed about 22 years in custody with remission and at present 72 years age and suffering from heart ailment and had gone under bypass surgery.

The rest of the document can be viewed at https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTYjMjI3MSMyMDI0IzEjTg==-sS9o22GH4ZQ=

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.