In Ashok Yadav vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Justice Sandeep Kumar delivered a 15-page long judgement dated October 10, 2025, wherein, he quashed the order dated September 12, 2023 passed by Bihar State Remission Board rejecting the proposal of the petitioner for his pre-mature release saying, the petitioner was not eligible for grant of pre-mature release. It was one of the two judgements delivered by the High Court on October 10, 2025.
Justice Kumar concluded: ''13. The petitioner is given liberty to approach the authorities for remission in light of the aforesaid judgment and if such an application is filed, the same shall be considered by the remission board in accordance with law and in light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Ajit Kumar Mishra Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. (Supra). The application of the petitioner shall be disposed of within three months of its filing.''
The petitioner had prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of CERTIORARI for quashing the decision of the State Remission Board dated September 12, 2023 so far it relates to the petitioner, whereby the State Remission Board had rejected the proposal of the petitioner for his pre-mature release interalia on the ground that under clause (iv) (ka) and (kha) of notification No. 3106 dated December 10, 2002 the petitioner was not eligible for grant of pre-mature release. He had also prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding and directing the Respondent Authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for pre-mature release and release him in connection with Sessions Trial No. 55 of 2006 arising out of Fulwaria P.S. Case No. 1 of 2006 on the ground that now the petitioner has already completed more than 22 years of sentence with remission and more than 17 years of his physical incarceration, taking into consideration that the case of the petitioner has been covered under 1984 Policy prevailing at the relevant time of his conviction since the petitioner was convicted on April 10, 2006 and the notification no. 3106 dated December 10, 2002 came into force with effect from July 2, 2007.
The petitioner was aggrieved by the rejection of his application for early release as he had completed 19 years in actual imprisonment. The petitioner was convicted under section 364, 302, 201 of the Indian penal Code and were sentenced to death by the District & Sessions Judge, Gopalganj in Sessions Trial No. 55 of 2006 arose out of Phulwari P.S. Case No. 1 of 2006 vide Judgement dated April 5, 2006 and order on the point of sentence dated April 10, 2006. Subsequently, the High Court in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 329 of 2006 had commuted the death sentence of the petitioner to life imprisonment.
The petitioner had previously approached the High Court through Cr.W.J.C. No. 103 of 2022, for pre-mature release after completing 14 years of actual imprisonment and the same was disposed vide order dated July 18, 2023. The relevant paragraphs of the order reads:-
“8. From perusal of the impugned order of the State Remission Board dated 19.05.2021 so far as it relates
to the petitioner, it transpires that the proposal of premature release of the petitioner has been rejected by merely quoting the provisions of Clause IV (क) of the Remission Policy and no further reasons have been assigned by the Board as to how the nature of offences committed by the petitioner comes under the purview of any other offence having similar effect of rape, dacoity and terrorist activities and as such is covered under Clause IV (क) of the Remission Policy. The impugned order is cryptic and non-speaking in nature, as such, in my opinion, the same is not sustainable under the law.
9. Accordingly, the impugned order of State Remission Board dated 19.05.2021 so far as it relates to the
petitioner is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the State Remission Board for reconsideration of the proposal of premature release of the petitioner, in accordance with law.
10. It is made clear that the proposal of premature release of the petitioner shall be considered and disposed by a reasoned order by the State Remission Board within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.”
The contention of the petitioner was that his case is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Ajit Kumar Mishra vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. (Cr.W.J.C. 1195 of 2021) and Pradeep Kumar Srivastava vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. (Cr.W.J.C. 453 of 2021).
Justice Kumar recorded that the counsel for the State Prabhu Narayan Sharma could not defend the impugned order rejecting the prayer of the petitioner in view of the judgment of the High Court in Ajit Kumar Mishra vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. and Pradeep Kumar Srivastava vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.
Relying on the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of the High Court in the case of Ajit Kumar Mishra, after quoting the minutes of the meeting dated December 23, 2020, Justice Kumar observed: "In view of the afore-quoted judgments, the impugned order cannot be sustained."
No comments:
Post a Comment