ORDER : 1. By filing this writ application under Articles 14, 21 and 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 427, 432, 433A and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant has prayed to grant the benefit under the provisions of Sections 427, 432 and 433A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and thereby be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to release the petitioner from the judicial custody in connection with Sessions Case No.191 of 1987 and Sessions Case No.167 of 1991. It is also prayed to direct the respondent authorities to give benefit of Government Resolution dated 25.1.2017 to the petitioner and release him in connection with aforesaid cases. 2. The facts which are requisite to be stated are that the first information report came to be filed being IC.R. No.56 of 1986 with Tilakwada Police Station, Vadodara against the present petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), as also section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The petitioner was arrested in connection with the said first information report and he came to be tried by way of Sessions Case No.191 of 1987. At the end of the trial, he was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment vide judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated January 18, 1996. 3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.112 of 1996, which came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated June 24, 2004. 4. During the pendency of Sessions Case No.191 of 1987, while the petitioner was on bail, he committed another offence of murder and another first information report being IC.R. No.107 of 1991 came to be lodged against the petitioner with Dabhoi Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 25(c) of the Indian Arms Act, 1959, which culminated into Sessions Case No.167 of 1991, wherein also at the end of the trial, the petitioner came to be convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment vide judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated December 22, 1992. Against the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence, he preferred Criminal Appeal No.109 of 1993, which ultimately came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated December 20, 2001. Against the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence, he preferred Criminal Appeal No.109 of 1993, which ultimately came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated December 20, 2001. The matters thereafter were not carried further. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by way of Special Criminal Application No.226 of 2007, seeking a direction that the State Authority may consider his case under section 427(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for final release on his completion of 14 years of sentence. However, such petition came to be withdrawn vide order dated September 12, 2007, whereby this Court granted him liberty to make an appropriate representation to the State Government. Thereafter, in the years 1992 and 1994, notifications were issued by the Home Department of the State Government for early release of the prisoner, who was convicted of life imprisonment. The guidelines were issued by the Home Department of the State Government and a notification dated September 23, 2003, was also issued by the National Human Rights Commission of the Union of India qua “Procedure/Guidelines on Premature Release of Prisoners”. 6. On June 30, 2007, another notification came to be issued by the Home Department of the State Government for early release of the convicts undergoing life imprisonment. The petitioner, therefore, approached the State Government for consideration of his representation dated September 28, 2007 for reduction of the sentence, however, the same was rejected. 7. The Home Department thereafter addressed a communication dated October 08, 2008, to the Inspector General of Police (Prisons) stating therein that the case of the petitioner may be considered for premature release under section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure after he completes 20 years of imprisonment. On the strength thereof, on September 25, 2012, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vadodara Central Jail, addressed a letter to the Superintendent of Police, requesting him to seek his opinion for premature release of the petitioner. 8. It is the say of the petitioner that the Additional Director General of Police and Inspector General of Police (Prisons) addressed a communication dated April 20, 2013 to the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Government of Gujarat, to pass necessary orders under section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Another letter was addressed by the Additional Director General of Police to the Superintendent of Police, Central Jail, Vadodara, for premature release of the petitioner. Another letter was addressed by the Additional Director General of Police to the Superintendent of Police, Central Jail, Vadodara, for premature release of the petitioner. Yet another letter dated July 1, 2013, was addressed to Superintendent of Vadodara Jail to submit his opinion for early release of the petitioner. Thereafter, on 25.10.2013 another letter was addressed to the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, by the Additional Director General of Police and Inspector General of Police (Prisons) for premature release of the petitioner. 9. On August 25, 2015, the petitioner made a representation to the Superintendent of Vadodara Central Jail, for his premature release, which was forwarded to the Sessions Court at Vadodara, for obtaining its opinion, which is not yet decided. It is the grievance of the petitioner that he is aged 70 years and not keeping good health. He has suffered four to five paralytic attacks and was also admitted to Sukhi Hospital for the period from August 03, 2013 to August 08, 2013. He is suffering from Diabetes, High Blood Pressure and Cerebro vascular attack. The Computerised Tomography (CT) scan of his head is indicative of the treatment by the Neuro Physician. It is also stated that due to paralytic attack suffered by the petitioner, the petitioner is not in a position to move around on his own without the help of attendant. 10. In view of aforesaid facts, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing Special Criminal Application No.4636 of 2016 with a prayer to grant him benefit under Sections 427, 432 and 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, however, said petition was dismissed by this court vide order dated 25.7.2016. In the said order, it is observed that the Jail Committee was to meet in December 2016 and the petitioner had completed more than 21 years of sentence in both the matters. It was also observed that physical condition, directions of the Apex Court and the period of sentence undergone by the petitioner shall be considered by the Jail Committee. 11. On 25.7.2016, the petitioner again made a representation to know the outcome of aforesaid meeting, which was to be held in December 2016, and it was also prayed to release the petitioner early, however, till date, no reply to such representation is received by the petitioner. 11. On 25.7.2016, the petitioner again made a representation to know the outcome of aforesaid meeting, which was to be held in December 2016, and it was also prayed to release the petitioner early, however, till date, no reply to such representation is received by the petitioner. It is also stated that even as per certificate dated 25.1.2017 of Medical Board of SSG Hospital, it has also recommended release of the petitioner from jail. On 26.1.2017, Government of Gujarat has issued a resolution for grant of remission to the prisoners, and though the petitioner fulfills all conditions contained in such resolution, his case is not considered. Therefore, the petitioner has prayed before this Court to direct the respondent authority to release him at the earliest. 12. Heard Ms.Tejal Vashi, learned advocate for the applicant and Ms.Monali Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State. 13. Ms.Tejal Vashi, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is languishing in jail for more than 20 years inspite of his good conduct and inspite of numerous illnesses. She further submitted that the petitioner is aged about 70 years and as he is suffering from various ailments, he needs a personal attendant even for his daily routine. She submitted that on 26.1.2017, Government of Gujarat had issued a resolution for grant of remission to the prisoners and though the petitioner fulfills all the requisite criteria, his case is not considered. She also submitted that order dated 25.7.2016 passed by this Court in earlier matter filed by the petitioner is not followed in correct letter and spirit. She further submitted that even as per the medical report of Medical Board of SSG Hospital, Vadodara, early release of the petitioner is recommended. In view of these, she has prayed to allow present application. 13.1 She has also sought to rely upon the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Sangeet and another v. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 2013 SC 447 , wherein the Apex Court has decided the issue of remission and has also examined the procedural check on arbitrary remissions given under section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Government of India pursuant to the said decision has published a notification dated February 01, 2013 in relation to section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and restriction on powers of remission or communication in certain cases. After issuance of the said notification by the Government of India, the State of Gujarat vide notification dated May 08, 2013, decided to follow the instructions/ guidelines issued by the Union of India and cancelled its notification dated July 09, 1982. 13.2 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also urged that considering the health condition of the petitioner and bearing in mind the detailed guidelines issued by the Supreme Court and thereafter, vide notifications dated February 01, 2013 and May 08, 2013 by the Union of India and State of Gujarat respectively, the authority is required to direct early release of the petitioner. 14. Per contra, Ms.Monali Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State, has urged that in the year 2008, the Section Officer, Home Department, had addressed a letter to the Inspector General of Police (Prisons), stating therein that the request of early jail release is not acceded to as he is a habitual offender and in all, four persons are killed in two incidents. She has further urged that the report of the learned Sessions Judge called for by the Jail Authority was in negative. She also submitted that the nature of crime and the use of weapons for committing such crime is also required to be taken into consideration for not releasing the petitioner early. She further submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of remission under Government Resolution dated 25.1.2017. She also submitted that in compliance of order dated 25.7.2016 passed in Special Criminal Application No.4636 of 2016, Advisory Meeting of Jail Committee was held on 23.4.2018 and the Advisory Committee has given negative opinion. In view of all these, she has prayed to dismiss present application. 15. Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. It seems that the petitioner has earlier approached this Court by filing Special Criminal Application No.4636 of 2016 with similar prayers. This Court has dismissed aforesaid petition by order dated 25.7.2016, wherein it was observed in paragraphs 15 and 16 as under:- “15. 15. Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. It seems that the petitioner has earlier approached this Court by filing Special Criminal Application No.4636 of 2016 with similar prayers. This Court has dismissed aforesaid petition by order dated 25.7.2016, wherein it was observed in paragraphs 15 and 16 as under:- “15. At this stage, it would be profitable to reproduce the provisions of section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which read as under : “433A. Restriction on powers of remission or commutation in certain cases : Notwithstanding anything contained in section 432, where a sentence of imprisonment for life is imposed on conviction of a person for an offence for which death is one of the punishments provided by law, or where a sentence of death imposed on a person has been commuted under Section 433 into one of imprisonment for life, such person shall not be released from prison unless he had served at least fourteen years of imprisonment.” For early release, vide communication dated August 19, 2015, such a proposal was forwarded. Although, due to negative opinion dated March 31, 2016 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, no decision has been taken by the Jail Committee. As the Jail Committee is to meet in the month of December, 2016 and as the petitioner has completed 20 years and 14 years of sentences respectively in both the matters, his physical conditions, coupled with the directions of the Apex Court and the period he has already undergone, shall be considered by the Jail Committee undoubtedly when it meets in the month of December, 2016. No immediate relief is warranted. 16. For the foregoing reasons, the present petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.” 16. Therefore, it is clear that even while dismissing the petition, it was observed that the Jail Advisory Committee shall consider the case of the petitioner in view of his physical condition, directions of the Apex Court and the period already undergone by the petitioner. This Court has considered the opinion given by the Jail Advisory Committee. In such opinion, members of the Jail Advisory Committee have only stated that no opinion could be formed for early release of the petitioner, however, no specific reasons are given for formation of such opinion. 17. This Court has considered the opinion given by the Jail Advisory Committee. In such opinion, members of the Jail Advisory Committee have only stated that no opinion could be formed for early release of the petitioner, however, no specific reasons are given for formation of such opinion. 17. Resolution dated 25.1.2017 issued by the Government of Gujarat reads as under :- "Grant of Remission to the Prisoners in the Prisons of the State on the occasion of the celebration of 68th Republic Day on 26th January, 2017. Government of Gujarat Home Department, No.JLK/822013/5009/J Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, Date :- 25th January, 2017 Resolution :- On the occasion of the celebration of 68th Republic Page 7 of 14 HC-NIC Page 7 of 14 Created On Tue Aug 15 02:08:51 IST 2017 R/SCR.A/2203/2017 JUDGMENT Day on 26th January, 2017 and in pursuance of Article 161 of the Constitution of India the Government of Gujarat hereby grants remission in sentence to the extent set out herein below to the convicted persons undergoing imprisonment inflicted by the Courts of criminal jurisdiction of the State and who are confined in the jails and in the Prisons of the State. Categories of Prisoners for release :- (a) In respect of prisoners convicted for life imprisonment and who have undergone 12 (twelve) years of actual imprisonment including set-off as on 26th January, 2017 or before, full remission of the remaining period is granted. (b) xxxxxxxxx (c) In respect of prisoners convicted for life imprisonment, who have not absconded from parole/furlough/interim bail etc. for more than three days, last ten years, and have undergone 12 years of actual imprisonment including setoff as on 26th January, 2017, full remission of the remaining period is granted. (d) xxxxxxxxxxxxx A. Conditions of Release : (1) This order shall not be applicable to under trial prisoners. (2) The following condition shall be attached to all release If, following his release, any prisoner commits any cognizable offence involving grave injury to a person or property, he/she shall be liable to be apprehended and confined to serve the unexpired portion of his sentence, so remitted. (3) The Jail Advisory Committee shall scrutinize each case as directed by Hon. Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.566 of 2010 (Arising out of SLP (Cri.) No.6638 of 2009) and Criminal Appeal No.490- 491 of 2011 before granting this State Remission. (3) The Jail Advisory Committee shall scrutinize each case as directed by Hon. Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.566 of 2010 (Arising out of SLP (Cri.) No.6638 of 2009) and Criminal Appeal No.490- 491 of 2011 before granting this State Remission. (4) If a prisoner is on Parole or Furlough, the remission shall be granted only if the prisoner surrendered in the jail before the expiry of period of Parole or Furlough. (5) The State Remission is one time and cannot be extended to a future date. (6) The remission shall be granted as per the Government Resolution No.JLK/822012/1859/J, dated 23-01-2014 and its subsequent amendment No.JLK/822012/1859/J, dated 25/01/2017. By order and in the name of the Governor of Gujarat, Sd/- (M. B. Soni) Deputy Secretary to the Government of Gujarat, Home Department." 18. Now, so far as decision of the Jail Advisory Committee is concerned, it is governed by Resolution No.JLK/822012/1859/J dated 23.1.2014 issued by Home Department, Government of Gujarat, which provides the procedure to be followed by the Jail Advisory Committee. It reads as under:- “Procedure to be followed by the Jail Advisory Committee:- The Jail Advisory Committee will follow the guidelines as stated here under:- (i) …........ (vii) The Jail Advisory Committee shall consider the seriousness of crime, the conduct in the jail the status of the co-accused, the period of absconding of the prisoner and the sentences in the jail and also other cognizable offences during the period of Parole/Furlough and also period of absconding. (viii) The Jail Advisory Committee will also consider the following guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxman Naskar V/s State of Bengal reported in AIR 2000 SC 2762 . (a) Whether offence is an individual act of crime without affecting the society at large? (b) Whether there is any fruitful purpose of confining of this convict any more ? (c) Whether there is any chance of future reoccurrence of committing crime? (d) Whether the convict has lost his potential in committing crime? (e) Socio-economic condition of the convict family? (ix) The Jail Advisory Committee will also if there is any threat to the state or the National Security at large. In such cases the Jail Advisory Committee will give negative opinion with detailed reasons taking into account the Constitutional right. (x) The Jail Advisory Committee will consider the opinion of the judge, as mentioned above. (ix) The Jail Advisory Committee will also if there is any threat to the state or the National Security at large. In such cases the Jail Advisory Committee will give negative opinion with detailed reasons taking into account the Constitutional right. (x) The Jail Advisory Committee will consider the opinion of the judge, as mentioned above. The committee will also consider the opinion of the District Magistrate and the Police Authorities. Both are the members of the Advisory Committee, therefore, both should stick to their earlier opinion. If the District Magistrate and also the Police Authorities wants to change their earlier opinion, in the meeting of the Advisory Committee, in such cases the detailed reasons/ justification must be noted in the proceedings. (xi) …....................” 19. So far as facts of the present case are concerned, the petitioner is in jail for about 20 years. The petitioner is aged about 70 years and he is suffering from various ailments, due to which he needs a personal attendant even for his daily routine. Even as per the medical report of Medical Board of SSG Hospital, Vadodara, early release of the petitioner is recommended. Considering the health condition of the petitioner and bearing in mind the detailed guidelines issued by the Supreme Court, it is required to be considered whether there is any fruitful purpose of confining of this convict any more, whether there is any chance of future re-occurrence of committing crime, whether the convict has lost his potential in committing crime, and what is the socio-economic condition of the family of the convict. 20. This Court is mindful of the fact that the Jail Advisory Committee has not found it appropriate not to recommend early release of the convict, however, in the opinion of this Court, ends of justice would meet if the case of the petitioner for early release from the judicial custody in connection with Sessions Case No.191 of 1987 and Sessions Case No.167 of 1991 is re-considered sympathetically keeping in mind the relevant Government Resolutions, Directions issued by the Supreme Court and also the aforesaid aspects of the matter. Therefore, the matter is remanded back to the concerned authority to take the decision afresh in accordance with law and the observations made herein above. Such decision shall be taken within a period of one month from today. With this direction, present application is disposed of. Therefore, the matter is remanded back to the concerned authority to take the decision afresh in accordance with law and the observations made herein above. Such decision shall be taken within a period of one month from today. With this direction, present application is disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the above extent.