JUDGMENT : Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. 2. The prayer made is for remission. A counter affidavit was filed and along with the counter affidavit the decision of the Remission Board dated 7th April, 2017 was brought on record, whereby it was decided not to grant remission to the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of the Court to the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of co-convict namely Murari Yadav Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. [Cr.W.J.C. No. 2389 of 2018 decided on 01.10.2018. The said judgment is extracted here-in-under:- “Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Through this writ petition, the writ petitioner seeks direction of this Court to the respondents for his premature release under Short Sentence Policy of the State as he has already completed qualifying period of incarceration for such consideration. 3. Petitioner is serving life sentence in view of the judgment of conviction in Sahebpur Kamal Police Station Case No 76 of 2000. The Appellate Court has also affirmed the judgment. However, the death sentence was commuted to life sentence. A copy of the judgment has been appended as Annexure-2. 4. Petitioner’s case was earlier considered by Annexure 1 by the Remission Board and rejected. A stand was taken that he would be covered under Clause iv (b) of the amended Rule 529 of the Bihar Jail Manual as amended by notification dated 10th of December, 2002 as it is contended at the time of hearing that the petitioner’s conviction is under Section 34 of Indian Penal Code along with Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. He has compulsorily and mandatorily to be considered under such provision which will exclude him from considering for premature release. 5. However, we are not at all impressed by such type of submission but it is not an appropriate stage for considering the same because that would finally amount to deciding the issue. He has compulsorily and mandatorily to be considered under such provision which will exclude him from considering for premature release. 5. However, we are not at all impressed by such type of submission but it is not an appropriate stage for considering the same because that would finally amount to deciding the issue. As the period of one year has already lapsed since the last decision was taken by the Remission Board and as per the amended provision, admittedly, his case can be reconsidered by the Remission Board but we are convinced after looking to the earlier decision (Annexure 1) of the Remission Board that the same has been rendered without considering the following part of the judgment of the appellate Court while commuting the sentence from death to life which stands extracted as under: “xxx Bearing in mind the aforesaid principle, when we proceed to consider the facts of the present case, we are of the opinion that the same does not come within the purview of rarest of the rare cases. True it is that two persons had been killed, but there is nothing on record to show that the appellants shall be menace to the society threatening its peaceful existence. There is also nothing on record to show that they shall be continuous threat to the society, if come out of incarceration. We do not find any reason to believe that they cannot be reformed and shall continue with criminal activities. xxx” 6. Accordingly, we would direct the Remission Board to reconsider the case of the writ petitioner after addressing all the aspects in accordance with law and also the aforesaid finding/observation made by the Division Bench of this Court. 7. This writ petition stands disposed of.” 4. xxx” 6. Accordingly, we would direct the Remission Board to reconsider the case of the writ petitioner after addressing all the aspects in accordance with law and also the aforesaid finding/observation made by the Division Bench of this Court. 7. This writ petition stands disposed of.” 4. Learned counsel submits that keeping in view the provisions of the policy for remission as applicable to the controversy dated 10th December, 2002, copy whereof is Annexure-B to the counter affidavit of the State, there is a provision for a fresh consideration after the expiry of one year which is Clause (vi) (?k) extracted here-in-under:- ^^¼?k½ jkT; naMkns'k ifjgkj i”kZn~ }kjk fdlh canh dh le; iwoZ fjgkbZ dh ,d ;k ,d ls vf/kd voljksa ij vLohd`r mlds ekeys ds iqufoZpkj esa ck/kd ugha gksxhA fQj Hkh] fdlh fl)&nks’k canh ds vLohd`r ekeys ij iqufoZpkj mlds ekeys esa iwoZ esa fd;s x;s fopkj dh frfFk ls ,d lky dh vof/k chr tkus ij gh fd;k tk;sxkA** 5. It is, therefore, submitted that in view of the power of remission having been exercised in favour of one of the co-convicts pursuant to the directions of this Court the claim of the petitioner also deserves to be considered. 6. This petition, therefore, stands disposed of with a direction to the Remission Board to take a fresh decision with regard to the claim of the petitioner for grant of remission in the light of what has been stated above within a period of three months from the date of presentation of the certified copy of the order.