Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 695 (PAT)

Raja Ram Singh v. State of Bihar

2012-04-30

ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH

body2012
Order Per: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navaniti Prasad Singh Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By the present writ application, the petitioner who has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment has sought his premature release. It is submitted that the petitioner has completed over 15 years of physical imprisonment. 3. Learned counsel for the State was granted adjournment to seek instructions in the matter and file a comprehensive counter affidavit. A counter affidavit has been filed though not on record. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the counter affidavit as per the records of the learned counsel for the State. Learned counsel for the State has relied on a judgment of this court in the case of Kanti Devi vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. since reported in 2012(1) PLJR 154 in which a Division Bench of this court has held that the policy of remission in vogue on the date of conviction would be considered to be the relevant policy. This Court has also referred to, in that case, the judgment in the case of State of Haryana vs. Jagdish since reported in (2010)4 SCC 216 . 5. Learned counsel for the State accordingly submits that on the date of conviction, the policy in vogue was the 1984 policy which, inter alia, provided that in order to get premature release, a person must be in prison for a period of minimum 14 years and with remissions 20 years. He further states that accordingly, though the petitioner has completed 14 years of physical imprisonment, with remission, he has not completed 20 years. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner, with reference to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Jagdish (supra) particularly paragraph no. 54 thereof, submits that the Apex Court had said that the policy prevailing on the date of the judgment would ordinarily be the policy which would be relevant for remission but if subsequent policy has been relaxed conditions in favour of a prison, it would be that policy that would apply. We refer to paragraph no. 54 of the aforementioned judgment and quote the same as hereunder:- "54. We refer to paragraph no. 54 of the aforementioned judgment and quote the same as hereunder:- "54. The State authority is under an obligation to at least exercise its discretion in relation to an honest expectation perceived by the convict, at the time of his conviction that his case for premature release would be considered after serving 'the sentence, prescribed in the short-sentencing policy existing on that date. The State has to exercise its power of remission also keeping in view any such benefit to be construed liberally in favour of a convict which may depend upon case to case and for that purpose, in our opinion, it should relate to a policy which, in the instant case, was in favour of the respondent. In case a liberal policy prevails on the date of consideration of the case of a "lifer" for premature release, he should be given benefit thereof." 7. In our view, the judgment of the Apex Court is clear with regard to the rule that the policy in vogue on the date of conviction would be the policy that would apply but that does not deter the power of the State to relax the policy and if that is so done, then the relaxed rule in favour of the prisoner should apply. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, draws our attention to the subsequent policy of the State as per Notification dated 10th December, 2002 by which Rule 529 of the Bihar Jail Manual has been substituted. The reference to the said new Rule would show that now the condition of 20 years of imprisonment with remission has been done away with. The only requirement is that the person must have completed 14 years of physical imprisonment. 9. Of course, there are certain other new disabilities introduced. Suffice to say that the petitioner does not suffer from any of the disability contained therein. 10. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the liberalized policy of 2002 would accordingly apply and it would be a matter for the State Remission Board to reconsider the case of the petitioner in view of the observations made above. 11. 10. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the liberalized policy of 2002 would accordingly apply and it would be a matter for the State Remission Board to reconsider the case of the petitioner in view of the observations made above. 11. In order to clear any confusion, let it be noted that in the earlier judgment delivered by us, namely, Kanti Devi (supra), we had not decided the issue whether a policy which was prevalent at the time when conviction was ordered and was subsequently relaxed, what would be its effect. As noted above, the effect would be as noted in paragraph no. 54 of the judgment in the case of Jagdish (supra) and its relaxed terms and condition which would apply. 12. In that view of the matter, the writ application is allowed with a liberty to the State Remission Board to immediately reconsider the matter in accordance with the observations and the finding given above in accordance with law.