Case Background
The petitioner is a life convict lodged in jail under a judgment of conviction for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
He and other accused persons were convicted by the court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. IV, Gopalganj. The judgment of conviction was delivered on 21.02.2006 and the order sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for life was passed on 22.02.2006.
While serving this life sentence, the petitioner completed many years in custody. He applied for premature release on the basis of remission, claiming that his case should be considered under the remission policy contained in Letter No. 550 dated 21.01.1984 issued by the Law Department, Government of Bihar.
On 28.11.2018, the State Sentence Remission Board rejected the proposal for his premature release. The Board relied on clause (iv)(ka) of Notification No. 3106 dated 10.12.2002 issued by the Home Department (Special), and also noted that there was no favourable report from the Presiding Officer of the convicting court.
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed this criminal writ petition before the Patna High Court seeking quashing of the Remission Board’s order dated 28.11.2018.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Patna High Court, sitting in its criminal writ jurisdiction, heard both sides through a virtual court proceeding. The main question was whether the State Remission Board was right in applying the 2002 remission notification to deny consideration of the petitioner’s premature release.
The petitioner’s side argued that he had already undergone more than 20 years of actual imprisonment and 24 years with remission. Based on this, he claimed a right to be considered for premature release under the remission policy that was in force when he was convicted and sentenced.
His counsel relied on the 1984 policy contained in Letter No. 550 dated 21.01.1984 of the Law Department, Government of Bihar. This letter, placed before the Court as Annexure P/1, governed premature release of life convicts at the relevant time.
Clause (2) of the 1984 policy, as noted in the judgment, stated that where life imprisonment had been awarded on or after 18.12.1978, the convict would be released from jail on completion of 14 years of actual incarceration and 20 years with remission.
The petitioner argued that as he was convicted on 21.02.2006 and sentenced on 22.02.2006, the 1984 policy was applicable to his case. He contended that Notification No. 3106 dated 10.12.2002 could not govern his case because, according to him, it came into effect only from 02.07.2007.
To support this stand, he relied on a Division Bench judgment of the Patna High Court dated 20.06.2017 in Cr.W.J.C. No. 748 of 2017 (Chandra Kant Kumar vs. the State of Bihar and others). The Division Bench had examined the implementation of the 2002 notification.
According to the petitioner’s counsel, the Division Bench held that though the notification was issued on 10.12.2002, it came to be actually implemented only after 02.07.2007. During the period before that date, all categories of life convicts were eligible for premature release by the jail superintendent himself, after completing 14 years of actual imprisonment and 20 years with remission, in terms of a letter dated 25.05.1985.
On this basis, the petitioner maintained that his case, being one where conviction and sentence occurred prior to 02.07.2007, must be considered under the earlier 1984 policy, and not under the later 2002 notification.
The State opposed the writ petition. Learned counsel for the State submitted that clause (iv)(a) of Notification No. 3106 dated 10.12.2002 (of the Home Department, Special) specifically barred premature release for certain classes of life convicts.
As recorded by the Court, this clause provides that life convicts sentenced for rape, dacoity and terrorist activities are not entitled to premature release. Since the petitioner had been convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, the State contended that he fell squarely within this barred category.
The State also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 23.07.2014 in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 48 of 2014 (Union of India vs. V. Sriharan @ Murugan and others). In that decision, the Supreme Court restrained State Governments from exercising their powers of remission and commutation where the life sentence related to any Central law, or to offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code or similar offences.
On this basis, the State submitted that the recommendation of the Remission Board was in accordance with the Supreme Court’s directions and the 2002 notification, and therefore the writ petition deserved to be dismissed.
However, the High Court noted a significant gap in the State’s defence. The Court pointed out that the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State was “conspicuously” silent on the specific point raised by the petitioner, namely, the applicability of the 1984 policy and the effect of the Division Bench judgment in Chandra Kant Kumar’s case.
After carefully hearing both sides, the Court recorded that it was prima facie satisfied with the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. The Court agreed that the petitioner’s case was covered by the Division Bench decision dated 20.06.2017 in Cr.W.J.C. No. 748 of 2017.
The crucial feature, in the Court’s view, was the date of the petitioner’s conviction and sentence. Since he had been convicted and sentenced in February 2006, that is, prior to 02.07.2007, the Court held that his case was required to be considered in light of the 1984 remission policy contained in Letter No. 550 dated 21.01.1984.
The Remission Board, however, had rejected his case by applying clause (iv)(ka) of Notification No. 3106 dated 10.12.2002 and by noting the absence of a favourable report from the Presiding Officer of the convicting court. The Court did not examine the merits of whether the petitioner in fact deserved premature release; rather, it focused on whether the correct policy framework had been applied.
Finding that the Board had used the wrong yardstick, the Patna High Court concluded that the impugned order could not stand. It therefore set aside the order dated 28.11.2018 of the State Remission Board, Bihar.
The Court then gave a clear direction. It allowed the criminal writ petition and ordered the State Remission Board to reconsider the petitioner’s case afresh. In doing so, the Board was directed to keep in mind the various judgments of the Patna High Court referred to in the order, particularly the Division Bench decision in Chandra Kant Kumar.
The Court also fixed a time frame. The State Remission Board was directed to take an appropriate view of the matter within six weeks from the date of receipt or production of a copy of the High Court’s order.
Thus, the outcome of the case is that the earlier rejection of remission is no longer valid, and the petitioner’s request for premature release must be freshly decided under the correct 1984 policy and binding judicial precedents.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for life convicts in Bihar whose convictions took place before 02.07.2007. It clarifies that for such convicts, the remission and premature release policy applicable is the 1984 policy, and not automatically the later 2002 notification.
For prisoners and their families, the decision means that an application for premature release cannot be rejected simply by citing the harsher provisions of the 2002 notification if the conviction is from an earlier period.
For authorities, including the State Remission Board and jail officials, the judgment reinforces that they must carefully apply the correct policy that was in force at the time relevant to the convict’s case, and must follow prior decisions of the Patna High Court.
The judgment also shows that the High Court is willing to intervene where a remission decision appears to have ignored binding precedent or applicable policy, even in sensitive cases involving serious offences like rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Whether the State Remission Board was justified in rejecting the petitioner’s plea for premature release by applying clause (iv)(ka) of Notification No. 3106 dated 10.12.2002.
Answer: No. Since the petitioner was convicted and sentenced in February 2006, that is before 02.07.2007, his case had to be considered under the 1984 remission policy (Letter No. 550 dated 21.01.1984) as interpreted by the Division Bench in Cr.W.J.C. No. 748 of 2017. - Issue: What relief should be granted when the wrong remission policy has been applied to a life convict’s case.
Answer: The High Court set aside the Remission Board’s order dated 28.11.2018 and directed the Board to reconsider the petitioner’s case afresh in the light of the applicable 1984 policy and relevant High Court judgments, within six weeks.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Cr.W.J.C. No. 748 of 2017, Chandra Kant Kumar vs. the State of Bihar and others (Division Bench of Patna High Court, judgment dated 20.06.2017).
- Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 48 of 2014, Union of India vs. V. Sriharan @ Murugan and others (Supreme Court of India, judgment dated 23.07.2014).
Case Details
Case Number: Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 209 of 2020
Case Title: Yogendra Bhagat vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2022 (3) PLJR 31
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan
Date of Judgment: 16.08.2021
Advocates: Mr. Vijay Kumar Singh, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr. Md. Nadim Seraj, Advocate for the respondents.
Nature of Case: Criminal writ petition challenging the order of the State Sentence Remission Board rejecting premature release of a life convict.
Impugned Order: Order of the State Remission Board, Bihar dated 28.11.2018.
Link to Judgment: Patna High Court Judgment
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
