PATNA, India, March 8 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on Feb. 5:

1. Learned counsel Mr. Yash Raj Singh appears and submits that inadvertently the name of learned counsel Mr. Vijay Anand who represents Economic Offence Unit is being shown in the cause list though the Economic Offence Unit is not party in the present writ petition.

2. Office is directed to correct the same.

3 Heard learned counsel for the parties and I intend to dispose of the petition at this stage.

4. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following relief(s):- "

(I) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of MANDAMUS, commanding and directing the Respondent Nos. 8 to send the proposal along with relevant reports of the prescribed Authorities as required under the law to the State Remission Board for grant of permanent remission and premature release to the petitioner in connection with Sessions Trial No. 433 of 2010 arising out of Barari P.S. Case No. 66 of 2010 in which the petitioner was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life vide judgment and order dated 27.02.2013 and order on the point of the sentence dated 05.03.2013 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge-II, Katihar.

(II) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of MANDAMUS, commanding and directing the Respondent State Remission Board to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of permanent remission and grant pre-mature release to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has already completed 14 years of his physical incarceration on 06.06.2024 and now he had completed more than 15 years of his physical incarceration.

(III) For issuance of any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders direction/directions for which the writ petitioner would be entitled under the facts and circumstances of the case."

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already completed actual custody of more than 14 years and prayer for premature release of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that he has not completed custody of 20 years with remission but the same is not required after the order of Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Raja Ram Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., (2012) SCC OnLine Pat 1798. The case of the petitioner is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench in Raja Ram Singh (supra).

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTYjMjIyOSMyMDI1IzEjTg==-o--am1--60CBewh--ak1--s=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.