PATNA, India, Oct. 8 -- 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.
7. The learned senior counsel further submits that from perusal of rejection order dated 29.01.2025, it is apparent that the proposal of premature release of the petitioner was rejected by the Board on the grounds of adverse report of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gaya, several applications submitted against the release of the petitioner and pending criminal cases against the petitioner. The learned senior counsel further submits that the report of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gaya is based on the report submitted by the SDPO, Neemchak Bathani, Gaya received vide letter no. 2992/2024 dated 15.09.2024 whereby and whereunder the SDPO, Neemchak Bathani reported against the premature release of the petitioner. The learned senior counsel further submits that irony of the situation is that earlier report of the SDPO dated 21.06.2024 favourable to the premature release of the petitioner had been ignored by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gaya, who obtained another report from the same SDPO, apparently for frustrating the claim of the petitioner. It seems the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gaya forced the SDPO to submit a report against the petitioner. The learned senior counsel further submits that so far as mentioning the criminal cases against the petitioner in column 14 as one of the grounds for rejection of the claim of premature release is concerned, even those cases have been taken into consideration in which the petitioner has already been acquitted. The learned senior counsel reiterates that the Board has relied on the report of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gaya, which is based on 2nd report of the same SDPO, Neemchak Bathani, Gaya, who had earlier submitted a report for premature release in favour of the petitioner. The learned senior counsel further submits that the Board has not applied its mind to the facts presented before it and has failed to appreciate that except for the report of Senior Superintendent of Police, Gaya, all the statutory authorities had recommended for premature release of the petitioner. Thus, the Board has not applied its own mind vis-a-vis the facts of the case and acted mechanically by just referring to the report of the Senior Superintendent of Police and hence, the decision of the Board is against the settled principle of law. In support of his contention, the learned senior counsel refers to the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 20.03.2024 passed in the case of Md. Azimuddin @ Ajimuddin vs. The State of Bihar (Cr.W.J.C.No. 146 of 2022). Elaborating on the parameters and guidelines prescribed by the various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court for consideration of cases by the Board for remission, the learned senior counsel refers to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Rajo @ Rajwa @ Rajendra Mandal v. State of Bihar & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1068 & Ram Chander vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & Anr, (2022) 12 SCC 52.
The rest of the document can be viewed at The rest of the document can be viewed at link
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
