Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.—This writ application has been preferred by a life convict who had been sentenced to death by the learned trial court but in appeal the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has commuted his death sentence to one of life imprisonment. Being a life convict, the petitioner has spent 22 years of imprisonment with remission at the time of filing of the writ application. He made a request to the competent authority to allow him to go on premature release, however, his request for premature release has been rejected by the Bihar State Remission Board vide minute of the meeting dated 27.01.2020. 2. In the aforementioned background the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:— “I. To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the decisions taken by State Punishment Remission Council (Here in after referred as ‘Council) Dated 27.01.2020 with respect to the petitioner whereby and where under the case of Remission and release of the petitioner was rejected on non est grounds without looking in to the facts and the circumstances of the case and without considering the case of the petitioner in proper perspective particularly ignoring the findings recorded by the Division Bench in case of petitioner in its Judgement Dated 02.11.2007 in Cr. Appeal No. 690 of 2005 (DB). II. To issue further appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for premature release under the provisions of section 433 and 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the provisions of the Bihar Prison Manual as also in view of the Principles decided by Hon’ble Apex court and the High Court. III. To issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the facts and the circumstances of the case directing the Respondents to release the petitioner forth with without any further delay. IV. This Hon’ble court may adjudicate and hold that the Council has not considered the case of the petitioner for premature release in the light of the findings recorded by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble court in the case, of petitioner and has practically ignored the said finding and passed the rejection order on 27.01.2020 in mechanical manner on wholly erroneous grounds. V. This Hon’ble court may further adjudicate and hold that in view of the specific findings recorded on 02.11.2007 by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court on the subject, it was not appropriate for the council to reject the case of the petitioner for premature release on the non est Grounds. VI. This Hon’ble court may further adjudicate and hold that for the negligence and latches on the part of the Respondents, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. VII. This Hon’ble court may further adjudicate and hold that in the facts and the circumstances of the case the action of the Respondents rejecting the claim of the petitioner for pre mature release, after having under gone 22 years imprisonment with remission, is an act of the malafide and arbitrary exercise of the power by the Respondents. VIII. To award the cost of litigation and suitable compensation to the Petitioner for the loss and damages caused to the petitioner by the erroneous considerations/actions of the respondents. IX. To allow any other relief or reliefs for which the Petitioner is found entitled in the fact and circumstances of this case.” BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE 3. The admitted facts of the case are that the petitioner was an accused in Sessions Trial No. 220 of 2003 arising out of Falka P.S. Case No. 39 of 2002. He was convicted for the offences under Sections 364A, 302, 201 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated 07.09.2005 passed by learned Ist Additional District & Sessions Judge, Katihar. The petitioner was awarded death sentence, against the said judgment of conviction and sentenced the petitioner preferred Cr. Appeal No. 690 of 2005 (DB) before this Court. 4. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was heard along with the Death Reference Case No. 8 of 2005 and a Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court finally vide it’s judgment dated 02.11.2007 acquitted him from the charges under Sections 364A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code but sustained his conviction under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. While commuting the death sentence of the petitioner, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court commuted the sentence to one of life imprisonment. The Special Leave Petition preferred by the appellant before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dismissed. The petitioner has, thus, remained in custody since 23.04.2002. REQUEST FOR REMISSION 5. While commuting the death sentence of the petitioner, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court commuted the sentence to one of life imprisonment. The Special Leave Petition preferred by the appellant before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dismissed. The petitioner has, thus, remained in custody since 23.04.2002. REQUEST FOR REMISSION 5. It appears that the petitioner requested the competent authority for his premature release. In this regard, the correspondences which have taken place are available on the record of the writ application. It appears that pursuant to the letter no. 367 dated 10.05.2017 written by the Superintendent, Open Prison, Buxar, the then Superintendent of Police, Purnea wrote to him on 11.07.2017, that according to the inquiry report and opinion of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Sadar, Purnea the conduct of the prisoner (petitioner) and his family members were good and there was no threat to the society on release of the petitioner. The then Superintendent of Police, Purnea opined that in the light of the report of the S.D.P.O., Purnea the petitioner may be granted premature release. 6. The report of the Probation Officer as contained in his letter no. 82 dated 09.05.2018 also opined in favour of giving an opportunity to the petitioner to rehabilitate. Probation Officer reported that earlier the petitioner was earning his livelihood by running an electronic shop at Katihar and he has also his family house at Purnea. 7. From the records, it appears that the matter relating to premature release of the petitioner remained pending for a considerable period. In the meantime, another report of the Superintendent of Police, Katihar as contained in Letter No. 251 dated 5.01.2020 was submitted in which it was stated that the Officer Incharge of the Falka Police Station had reported that premature release of the petitioner is likely to result in adverse impact on the informant and his family. It appears that the opinion was also sought from the learned Presiding Officer of the trial court and the learned Presiding Officer observed against the premature release of the petitioner stating that the petitioner was involved in murder of an innocent boy of less than 14 years. 8. The proposal of the petitioner was placed before the Remission Board in it’s meeting held on 27.01.2020. 8. The proposal of the petitioner was placed before the Remission Board in it’s meeting held on 27.01.2020. From the minutes of the meeting (Annexure ‘2’), it would appear that the case of the petitioner was considered as one under Section 364A, 302, 201 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The Remission Board rejected the request of the petitioner taking note of the adverse reports of the Superintendent of Police, Katihar and the Presiding Officer of the learned trial court. Further the Remission Board opined that in the light of the para (iv) ([k) of Notification No. 31 those prisoners who have committed per-meditated murders shall not be considered for premature release. As regards the petitioner, it has been observed by the Remission Board that in his case he had kidnapped a boy of less than 14 years for ransom and murdered him for which he has been found guilty, hence, his proposal was rejected. SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the decision of the Remission Board as contained in Annexure ‘2’ on the following grounds:— (i) The Probation Officer who had occasion to observe the conduct of the petitioner had submitted the social investigation report as regards the petitioner. He has informed that this petitioner was running his electronic shop and from the earnings thereof he was making the livelihood of his family. The family of the petitioner has also a house at Purnea and upon hearing that the petitioner may be considered for premature release, his family members and neighbours expressed their happiness. The neighbours told the Probation Officer that on his release there would be no problem of rehabilitation of the petitioner and the neighbours had no complain against his proposed release. Thus, Probation Officer’s report has not at all been considered by the Remission Board. (ii) The Remission Board has taken into consideration the report of Superintendent of Police, Katihar which contains nothing but a statement that the Officer-In-Charge of Falka Police Station had inquired into the matter and according to him the informant and the family members of the informant had expressed their apprehension against the petitioner. Annexure ‘B’ to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. Annexure ‘B’ to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 on 14th July, 2021 is the letter No. 251 dated 15.01.2020 of the Superintendent of Police, Katihar and it contains an enclosure which is copy of the letter dated 08.01.2020 written by one Dayanand Paswan, the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police of Falka Police Station. Learned counsel submits that perusal of Annexure ‘B’ to the counter affidavit shows that the letter of the S.I. is nothing but a casual exercise on his part to somehow defeat the case of the petitioner for premature release. He has mentioned in his letter that this petitioner is a dreaded criminal but save and except a bald statement no material at all has been mentioned in his letter to show that the petitioner is a dreaded criminal. Further the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police says that he inquired from the informant and co-villagers who told that the premature release of the petitioner is likely to put the life of the informant’s family in danger. There is, however, no basis for saying that, because the letter of the A.S.I. is not supported by copy of any complaint either from the informant or any other co-villager. Moreover, it is completely diversed to the opinion of the Superintendent of Police, Purnea. The Superintendent of Police, Purnea had earlier vide his Memo No. 2500 dated 11.07.2017 submitted that the conduct of the petitioner and his family is good and there is no threat if he is released. It is his submission that the letter of the Superintendent of Police, Purnea is available at page ‘15’ of the writ application and the same has not been contested by the respondents. Learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court towards the order recorded by this Court on 10.01.2021 in which this Court had noticed the bald pleadings of the State in the counter affidavit and has recorded that basis of the opinion of the officer-in-charge was not available on the record. This Court had called upon the respondents to place on record the copy of the inquiry report and the basis on which the opinion was recorded by the officer-in-charge of Falka Police Station. This Court had called upon the respondents to place on record the copy of the inquiry report and the basis on which the opinion was recorded by the officer-in-charge of Falka Police Station. Learned counsel submits that in it’s order dated 10.08.2021 when this Court pointed out that there was no copy of inquiry report or the basis thereof and the State was given an opportunity to place on record the copy of the inquiry report of the officer-incharge based on which the opinion of the Superintendent of Police of Katihar had been recorded, instead of bringing on record the basis of the earlier report, the State respondents indulged in creating fresh reports and tried to impress upon this Court to justify the decision of the Remission Board taken in it’s meeting on 27.01.2020. It is only when the learned AC to learned Advocate General sensed the difficulties in proceeding to argue the matter on the basis of such fresh documents, he decided not to press the supplementary counter affidavit. All these facts are recorded by this Court in it’s order dated 08.09.2021. It is, thus, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the report of the Superintendent of Police, Katihar as also the report of the Presiding Officer of the learned trial court were not based on any material rather those were submitted without any basis and by ignoring the findings of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court recorded in it’s judgment dated 02.11.2007 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 690 of 2005. Attention of this Court has been drawn towards the findings of the Hon’ble Division Bench recorded in paragraph ‘18’ of the judgment. It is submitted that no sufficient evidence on record was found to hold the petitioner guilty of the charge under Section 364A or Section 120B of the IPC, therefore, the Hon’ble Division Bench acquitted him from those charges. Further the Hon’ble Division Bench held in categorical terms that “....on going through the entire prosecution case it is further found that according to prosecution the murder was committed not on account of pre-determination but on account of certain development such as failure to find a safe place to hide the boy perhaps with a view to negotiate for ransom. Hence, it is not possible to hold that murder was committed on account of cold blooded pre-meditation. Hence, it is not possible to hold that murder was committed on account of cold blooded pre-meditation. The post-mortem examination report also does not show that murder was effected with unusual brutality.....” Learned counsel, thus, submits that the opinion held by the Remission Board that it is a case of premeditated murder after kidnapping of the boy is completely contrary to the findings of the Hon’ble Division Bench. 10. Learned counsel further submits that so far as the policy decision of the Government as contained in the notification no. 3106 dated 10.12.2002 is concerned, a perusal thereof would show that the case of the petitioner is fit to be considered for premature release. It is submitted that the Hon’ble Division Bench while commuting the death sentence of the petitioner to the one of life imprisonment did not debar the petitioner from getting the benefit of remission as per the policy decision of the Government. It is his submission thus, that the Remission Board has completely erred in taking the case of the petitioner as a case of premeditated murder and rejection of his case for premature release in terms of the applicable policy contained in notification no. 3106 dated 10.12.2002 is unjust and improper as also contrary to the mandate of the Government Policy. SUBMISSION OF THE STATE 11. On the other hand, Mr. Prabhu Narayan Sharma, learned AC to learned AG has opposed the prayer of the petitioner on the following grounds:- (i) In case of this petitioner, the 2002 policy is applicable. But, according to him, the commutation of the death sentence to one of life imprisonment in case of the petitioner would not confer him the benefit of remission. By reading paragraph ‘8’ of the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench, Mr. Sharma, learned AC to AG has submitted that the Appellate Court nowhere records a finding that it was not a case of a planned murder. According to him, imprisonment for life as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Sriharan @ Murugan reported in (2016) 7 SCC 1 always means imprisonment till end of life. According to him, imprisonment for life as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Sriharan @ Murugan reported in (2016) 7 SCC 1 always means imprisonment till end of life. In this case, the reports of the Superintendent of Police, Katihar and the Presiding Officer of the learned trial court have been considered by the Remission Board and then having found that in terms of the Government’s Notification dated 10.12.2002 the petitioner is not eligible to be considered for premature release, the Remission Board rightly rejected his request for premature release. (ii) According to him, the petitioner may invoke the constitutional power of the Governor as contained under Article 161 of the Constitution of India but because the Hon’ble Appellate Court has not granted liberty to the petitioner to get the benefit of remission, his case shall not be eligible to be considered for premature release in terms of the notification No. 3106 dated 10.12.2002. CONSIDERATION 12. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the State at length. In course of hearing, pleadings have been exchanged between the parties and this Court has carefully gone through the same. At the outset, this court is of the considered opinion that in view of the categorical finding recorded by the Hon’ble Division Bench in paragraph ‘18’ of the judgment in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 690 of 2005 there is no scope for learned AC to learned AG to contend that the Hon’ble Division Bench has not recorded a finding that it was not a case of planned murder; on the contrary this Court finds that the Hon’ble Division Bench has recorded inter alia as under:— “.....we find that there is no sufficient evidence on record to hold him guilty of the charge under Section 364 (A) or Section 120B of the I.P.C. He is, therefore, acquitted of those charges. However, as discussed earlier, he is found guilty of the charge under Section 302 and also under Section 201 of the I.P.C. Coming to the legality of death sentence awarded to appellant Anuj Kumar Gupta @ Sethi Gupta, we find that he is an young man whose age was assessed by the Court in July 2005 as 25 years. However, as discussed earlier, he is found guilty of the charge under Section 302 and also under Section 201 of the I.P.C. Coming to the legality of death sentence awarded to appellant Anuj Kumar Gupta @ Sethi Gupta, we find that he is an young man whose age was assessed by the Court in July 2005 as 25 years. It has also come in the statement recorded by the trial court that he has no criminal antecedent and has not been convicted in any other earlier case. On going through the entire prosecution case it is further found that according to prosecution the murder was committed not on account of pre-determination but on account of certain development such as failure to find a safe place to hide the boy perhaps with a view to negotiate for ransom. Hence, it is not possible to hold that murder was committed on account of cold blooded premeditation. The post-mortem examination report also does not show that the murder was effected with unusual brutality…....” 13. This Court has no iota of doubt that the Hon’ble Division Bench judgment has recorded as a matter of fact a finding that the murder was committed not on account of predetermination. The Remission Board has completely erred by taking a view that this petitioner was involved in murder of the boy with pre-meditation of mind after kidnapping him. The Remission Board could not appreciate that the charges under Section 364A and 120B of the IPC were not proved against the petitioner and he was acquitted of those charges. The Remission Board, as it appears from Annexure ‘2’ proceeded to consider the case of the petitioner as if he was convicted under Section 364(A) and 120B of IPC. This was not a correct approach on the part of the Remission Board. 14. This Court has much to say on the manner in which the Remission Board took note of both the reports of the Superintendent of Police, Katihar and the Presiding Officer of the learned trial court as one of the reasons to reject the case of the petitioner. The Remission Board remained completely unmindful of the social investigation report submitted by the Probation Officer. The Remission Board remained completely unmindful of the social investigation report submitted by the Probation Officer. Further, the fact that the petitioner has his house at Purnea also and his shop is situated in Katihar, therefore, report of Superintendent of Police, Purnea gained importance was also required to be looked into but that has not at all been taken care of. The report of Superintendent of Police, Katihar categorically shows how the system works in the police department. The Superintendent of Police, Katihar is said to have submitted his report vide his memo no. 251 dated 15.01.2020. In his report (Annexure ‘B’ to the counter affidavit of the State) the Superintendent of Police talks of the report submitted by the Officer-In-Charge of Falka Police Station saying that the Officer-In-charge has made an inquiry but this is factually wrong which is evident from the enclosure letter as contained in memo no. 23 dated 08.01.2020 submitted by one Dayanand Paswan, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police of Falka police station. The Assistant Sub Inspector of Police has done a paper work only, he has not enclosed any copy of complaint or application in any form submitted by the informant and his family or any of the co-villager of the petitioner expressing any apprehension on the part of this petitioner. What is disturbing for this Court is that the Assistant Sub Inspector has recorded in his letter that this petitioner is a dreaded criminal whereas Hon’ble Division Bench Judgment has taken note of the facts recorded in the trial court judgment that this petitioner has no criminal antecedent. The Probation Officer’s report says that the petitioner was running an electronic shop from which he was earning his livelihood. This Court has, thus, no hesitation in recording that the Superintendent of Police, Katihar has acted only as a post office in forwarding the letter of Assistant Sub Inspector of Police by making a wrong statement in his forwarding letter that the report is that of the Officer-In-Charge of the police station. This is how the system has worked in this case. 15. This is how the system has worked in this case. 15. So far as the opinion of the Presiding Officer of learned trial court is concerned, this Court finds no reason as to why while considering a case of premature release a bald opinion of the learned Presiding Officer of the trial court without there being any basis of such opinion may be a ground to reject the case of the petitioner. This is to be kept in mind that the Hon’ble Division Bench had partly interfered with the trial court’s judgment by acquitting the petitioner of the charges under Sections 364A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. To substantiate it’s view, this Court would say that once the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has held that the charge of the kidnapping for ransom and brutal killing were not proved against the petitioner and further there was no pre-meditation of mind behind killing of the boy, for the purpose of consideration of the release of a convict the age of the victim alone shall not be a good for the presiding officer to recommend rejection of the application for premature release. Apparently, in this case while recording his opinion, the learned Presiding Officer of the trial court did not look into the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench. 16. The purpose behind keeping the policy of premature release is based on the reformative theory of criminal jurisprudence. While considering the case for premature release all those who are concerned and competent to consider the case for remission are obliged to keep in their mind that the rehabilitation of a convict is essential part of social obligation, thus, the authorities must exercise due diligence and care in the decision making process particularly while refusing to grant premature release to a convict. Such decision must be guided by the policy of the government and such policies be given effect to without any prejudice/bias. The fact that the Superintendent of Police, Purnea had also submitted a report and that was favouring premature release of the petitioner coupled with the Probation Officer’s report are relevant materials for the Remission Board to consider. Such decision must be guided by the policy of the government and such policies be given effect to without any prejudice/bias. The fact that the Superintendent of Police, Purnea had also submitted a report and that was favouring premature release of the petitioner coupled with the Probation Officer’s report are relevant materials for the Remission Board to consider. As stated above, the reports of Superintendent of Police, Katihar and that of the Presiding Officer of the learned trial court have no cogent basis to stand and the decision of the Remission Board based on these reports cannot sustain the taste of reasonableness and fair play in action. 17. The Remission Board has relied upon paragraph (iv) ¼d½ ,oa ¼[k½ of the notification dated 10.12.2002. 17. The Remission Board has relied upon paragraph (iv) ¼d½ ,oa ¼[k½ of the notification dated 10.12.2002. This Court would extract the said policy hereunder:— ^^fcgkj ljdkj x`g ¼fo'ks"k½ foHkkx vfèklwpuk iVuk] fnukad 10 fnlEcj] 2002 la[;k&ds@dkjk&fofoèk&63@2001&3106@ dkjk vfèkfu;e] 1894 dh èkkjk 59 }kjk ÁnRr 'kfDr;ksa dk Á;ksx djrs gq, jkT; ljdkj fcgkj dkjk gLrd esa rqjar ds ÁHkko ls fuEufyf[kr la'kksèku djrh gS%& la'kksèku fcgkj dkjk gLrd dk fu;e 529 fuEufyf[kr }kjk ÁfrLFkkfir fd;k tk,xk] ;Fkk] ¼1½ jkT; naMkns'k ifjgkj i"kZn dk xBuµfcgkj jkT; naMkns'k ifjgkj i"kZn~ uked ,d i"kZn~ gksxh tks canh dks fn, x, naMkns'k ifjgkj ds lacaèk esa fopkj djsxh vkSj leqfpr ekeyksa esa mldh le; iwoZ fjgkbZ dh vuq'kalk djsxhA ;g i"kZn~ ,d LFkk;h fudk; ¼body½ gksxh RkFkk fuEufyf[kr lnL;ksa dks feykdj xfBr dh tk;sxh%& 1- x`g lfpo vè;{k 2- fofèk lfpo lnL; 3- mPp U;k;ky; }kjk uke funsZf'kr ftyk ,oa l=k U;k;kèkh'k lnL; 4- funs'kd] ifjOkh{kk lsok,a lnL; 5- vkj{kh egkfuns'kd }kjk uke funsZf'kr vkj{kh egkfujh{kd lnL; 6- dkjk egkfujh{kd lnL;&lfpo bl i"kZn~ dh vuq'kalk;sa i"kZn~ esa fdlh fjfDr ;k blds fdlh lnL; dh i"kZn~ dh cSBd esa Hkkx ysus esa vleFkZrk ds dkj.k ek=k ls vofèk vekU; ugha gksaxhA ijUrq cSBd gsrq x.kiwfÙkZ iwfrZ ugha gksus ij] i"kZn dh cSBd ugha gksxhA i"kZn~ dh x.kiwfÙkZ vè;{k dks lfEefyr djrs gq, pkj lnL; ls gksxhA ¼2½ i"kZn~ dh cSBd dh vofèkµjkT; naMkns'k ifjgkj i"kZn~ ,d frekgh esa de&ls&de ,d ckj] jkT; eq[;ky; esa] iwjh dk;Z lwph ds lkFk de&ls&de 10 fnu iwoZ lnL;ksa dks vfèklwfpr frfFk dks cSBd djsxhA rFkkfi i"kZn~ ds vè;{k] ;fn vko';d le>sa] rks i"kZn~ dh ,d ls vfèkd cSBdsa ,d frekgh esa cqyk ldsaxsA ¼3½ le;&iwoZ fjgkbZ ds fy, vgZrkµjkT; naMkns'k ifjgkj i"kZn }kjk le;&iwoZ fjgkbZ ds fy, fopkj gsrq fuEufyf[kr dksfV ds canh ik=k gksaxs %& ¼d½ ÁR;sd fl}nks"k canh] iq:"k vFkok efgyk] tks vkthou dkjkokl dk naM Hkqxr jgk@jgh gks rFkk tks naM izfØ;k lafgrk dh èkkjk 433¼,½ ds Ákoèkkuksa ls vkPNkfnr gks] fcuk ifjgkj ds de&ls&de 14] o"kksZ dh okLrfod ltk Hkqxrus ds rqjr ckn le;&iwoZ fjgkbZ ds fy, fopkj djus gsrq ik=k gksaxsA ¼[k½ lHkh vU; vkthou dkjkokl dh ltk ÁkIr iq:"k fl}nks"k canh ifjgkj lfgr 14 o"kksZ dh U;wure ltk Hkqxrus vkSj fcuk ifjgkj ds 10 o"kksZ dh okLrfod ltk iwjh djus ds mijkUr le; iwoZ fjgkbZ ds fy, fopkj djus ds ik=k gksaxsA ¼x½ lHkh vU;] vkthou dkjkokl dh ltk Hkksx jgh efgyk fl}nks"k cUnh] ifjgkj lfgr 10 o"kksZ dh U;wure ltk Hkqxrus vkSj fcuk ifjgkj ds 7 o"kksZ dh okLrfod ltk vofèk iwjh djus ds mijkUr le; iwoZ fjgkbZ ds fy, fopkj djus dh ik=k gksxhA ¼?k½ fl}nks"k canh tks vkthou dkjkokl dh ltk dkV jgs gksa] 65 o"kZ dh vk;q iwjh djus ij] ;fn ifjgkj lfgr mUgksaus 7 o"kksZ ds lkeu dh ltk dkV yh gksA ¼Pk½ vkthou dkjkokl dk naM Hkqxr jgs oSls fl}nks"k canh tks dSalj] ,M~l] Bhd u gksus okyh fdMuh dh chekjh] g~n; ,oa 'okl ls tqM+s vlkè; jksx ,oa vU; ,slh NwvkNwr okyh chekjh ls xzLr gksa] tSlk fd fpfdRldksa ds ,d cksMZ }kjk Áekf.kr gks] ;fn mUgksaus 5 o"kksZ ds okLrfod vFkok ifjgkj lfgr 7 o"kksZ dk naM Hkqxr fy;k gksA ¼4½ le;&iwoZ fjgkbZ ds fy, v;ksX;rkµfuEukafdr Js.kh ds fl}nks"k canh] tks vkthou dkjkokl dk naM Hkqxr jgs gks] le; iwoZ fjgkbZ ds fy, fopkj&;ksX; ugha gks ldsaxs %& ¼d½ cykRdkj] MdSrh] vkradoknh vijkèkksa] vkfn tSls vijkèkksa ds fl}nks"k canhA ¼[k½ oSls canh] tks iwoZ fparu fd;s x;s fo"k;ksa ,oa lqfu;ksftr ¼x½ oSls is'ksoj gR;kjs] ftUgsa HkkM+s ij gR;k djkus dk nks"kh ik;k x;k gksA ¼?k½ oSls fl}nks"k canh tks rLdjh dk;Z esa varfyZIr jgrs gq, gR;k djrk gks vFkok dÙkZO; ij jgus okys yksd lsodksa dh gR;k dk nks"kh gksA ¼v½ ifjgkj i"kZn ds fopkj ds fy, ekeyksa ds ÁLrqrhdj.k dh ÁfØ;k%µ ¼d½ dsUæh;@ftyk dkjk ds ÁR;sd vèkh{kd] ftuds ikl vkthou dkjkokl dh ltk Hkqxr jgs canh gks] le;&iwoZ fjgkbZ ds fy, fofgr vgZrkvksa ds vuqlkj fopkj&{ks= esa vkus ds fy, fdlh canh ds vgZrk jkT; ljdkj }kjk bl fufer vfèkdfFkr ekunaM ds vuqlkj fopkj.k ds ;ksX; cafn;ksa ds gksus dh frfFk ls 3 ekg igys ls muds ekeyksa dh ÁfØ;k ÁkjEHk djsxkA ¼[k½ dkjk vèkh{kd ,sls ÁR;sd ekeysa esa ,d foLr`r fVIi.kh canh dh ikfjokfjd ,oa lkekftd i`"BHkwfe nsrs gq, rS;kj djsxkA mudh fVIi.kh esa ;g Hkh mfYyf[kr jgsxk fd fdl vijkèk ds fy, mls fl}nks"k ik;k x;k vkSj nh x;h ltk ,oa ifjfLFkfr;k¡ ftlds vèkhu vijkèk fd;k x;kA canh ds dkjkokl ds nkSjku mlds vkpj.k ,oa vkpkj] ifjoh{kk vodk'k ds mls NksM+s tkus dh vofèk esa mldk vkpj.k ,oa vkpkj] mlds vkpj.k 'kSyh esa dksbZ ifjorZu gqvk gks vFkok dkjk vijkèk ;fn mlds }kjk fd;k x;k gks vkSj mlds fy, ltk nh x;h gks] ds ckjs esa os iw.kZ :i ls Ádk'k MkysaxsA mls 'kkjhfjd] ekufld LokLF; ;k dksbZ xaHkhj chekjh gS] ftlls canh ihfM+r gS tks dh mls le;&iwoZ fjgkbZ ds fy, fo'ks"k fopkj.k ds fy, gdnkj cukrh gks] ds ckjs esa ,d Áfrosnu Hkh rS;kj fd;k tk,xkA bl fVIi.kh esa dkjkèkh{kd dh viuh vuq'kalk esa vUrfoZ"V gksxh fd canh dh le;&iwoZ fjgkbZ ds i{k esa gS ;k ugha vkSj ÁR;sd n'kk esa og Ik;kZIr dkj.kksa }kjk lefFkZr gksxhA ¼x½ dkjkèkh{kd ml ftys ds vkj{kh vèkh{kd dks funsZf'kr djsaxs fd canh vijkèk djus ds le;] ftlds fy, mls fl}nks"k fd;k x;k gS] dgka lkekU;r;k fuokl djrk Fkk vFkok dkjkeqDr gksus ds ckn og iqu% dgka clus okyk gSA fQj Hkh] canh tgka vijkèk djus ds le; lkekU;r;k fuokl djrk Fkk mlds fHkUu LFkku] tgka mlus vijkèk fd;k] fd n'kk esa Hkh ml ftys ds vkj{kh vèkh{kd dks ,d funsZ'k fn;k tk,xk] ftlesa vijkèk fd;k x;k FkkA nksuksa gh fLFkfr;ksa esa] og vius }kjk rS;kj dh x;h fVIi.kh dh Áfr canh dh le;&iwoZ fjgkbZ dh okaNuh;rk ds lacaèk esa viuk fopkj O;Dr djus gsrq vkj{kh vèkh{kd dks leFkZ djus gsrq Ásf"kr djsxkA ¼?k½ lacafèkr vkj{kh vèkh{kd funsZ'k ÁkIr gksus ij ekeys esa tks leqfpr dksfV ds ojh; vkj{kh inkfèkdkjh gks] }kjk tkap djk,axs ,oa Lofoosdkuqlkj viuh vuq'kalk djsaxsA vuq'kalk djrs le; vkj{kh vèkh{kd ;a=kor~ dk;Z ,oa canh dh le;&iwoZ fjgkbZ dk fojksèk ifjdfYir vk'kadkvksa ,oa vekU; vkèkkjksa ij ugha djsaxsA vxj vkj{kh vèkh{kd canh dh le;&iwoZ fjgkbZ ds i{k esa u gksa rks os rdZiw.kZ dkj.kksa ,oa rF;ksa ls mls U;k;ksfpr Bgjk,axsaA os funsZf'kr ÁkfIr ds 30 fnuksa ds Hkhrj lacafèkr dkjk vèkh{kd dks viuh jk; ds lkFk funsZ'k okil dj nsaxsA ¼Pk½ dkjkèkh{kd canh dY;k.k inkfèkdkjh@funs'kd jkT; dh ifjoh{kk lsok dks Hkh bl lacaèk esa funsZ'k djsaxs ,oa mUgsa viuh fVIi.kh dh ,d Áfr Hkh vxzlkfjr dj nsaxsA funsZ'k dh ÁkfIr ij] canh dY;k.k inkfèkdkjh funs'kd] ifjoh{kk lsok Lo;a djsaxs] vFkok fdlh ijoh{kk inkfèkdkjh ds ekè;e ls canh ikfjokfjd ,oa lkekftd i`"BHkwfe] mlds ifjokj ds lnL;ksa }kjk mldh Lohdk;Zrk] rFkk canh ds iquokZl ,oa ,d vPNs ukxfjd ds :i esa lkFkZd thou O;rhr djus gsrq lkekftd laHkkoukvksa dk è;ku j[krs gq, canh dh le; iwoZ fjgkbZ dh okaNuh; tkap djsaxs vFkok djk,axsaA os ;a=kor~ dk;Z ugha djsaxs ,oa ÁR;sd ekeys dks le;&iwoZ fjgkbZ ds fy, vuq'kaflr ugha djsaxsA nksuksa esa ls gjsd ekeys esa rF;ksa ds :i esa vfHkfyf[kr dkj.kksa@viuh vuq'kalk dks U;k;ksfpr Bgjk,xsA canh dY;k.k inkfèkdkjh@funs'kd ifjoh{kk lsok viuk Áfrosnu@vuq'kalk funsZ'k dh ÁkfIr ls 30 fnuksa ds Hkhrj dkjkèkh{kd dks lqiqnZ dj nsaxsA ¼N½ vkj{kh vèkh{kd rFkk canh dY;k.k inkfèkdkjh@funs'kd ifjoh{kk lsok ds Áfrosnu& vuq'kalk izkIr gksus ij] dkjkèkh{kd jkT; naMkns'k ifjgkj i"kZn~ dh ÁLrkfor cSBd ls de&ls&de ,d ekg iwoZ ekeyksa dks dkjk egkfujh{kd ds lkeus miLFkkfir djsaxsA dkjk egkfujh{kd ekeys dh tkap dkjkèkh{kd] vkj{kh vèkh{kd ,oa canh dY;k.k inkfèkdkjh@funs'kd ifjoh{kk lsok ds Áfrosnuksa@vuq'kalkvksa dks è;ku esa j[krs gq, djsaxsaA vkj{kh vèkh{kd rFkk canh dY;k.k inkfèkdkjh@funs'kd ijoh{kk lsok,a canh dh le;&iwoZ fjgkbZ vFkok jkT; naMkns'k ifjgkj i"kZn~ ds ljdkj }kjk vfèkdfFkr lkekU; ;k fo'ks"k fn'kk funsZ'k dks è;ku esa j[krs gq, canh dh fjgkbZ ds lacaèk esa viuh vuq'kalk,a djsaxsA le;&iwoZ fjgkbZ ds fo"k; esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ,oa fofHkUu ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;ksa }kjk fn, x;s fofHkUu lfUu;eksa ,oa fn'kk funsZ'kksa dks Hkh è;ku esa j[kk tk,xkA ifjgkj i"kZn ds fy, ÁfØ;k ,oa fn'kk funsZ'k%µ ¼d½ dkjk egkfujh{kd jkT; eq[;ky; esa jkT; naMkns'k ifjgkj i"kZn~ dh cSBd fdlh fnu rFkk le; vkgqr djsaxs ftldh iwoZ lwpuk cSBd dh fuèkkZfjr frfFk ls de&ls&de nl fnu iwoZ i"kZn~ ds vè;{k ,oa lnL;ksa dks lwpuk nh tk,xh ,oa mlds lkFk lEiw.kZ dk;Zlwph ds dkxtkr layXu jgsaxs] ;Fkk&dkjkèkh{kd dh fVIi.kh] vkj{kh vèkh{kd] canh dY;k.k inkfèkdkjh@funs'kd ifjoh{kk lsok;sa rFkk dkjkegkfujh{kd dh vuq'kalk,a] nLrkostksa dh Áfr lfgr ;fn dksbZ gksA ¼[k½ cSBd lkekU;r;k vè;{k dh vè;{krk esa gksxh vkSj ;fn dqN dkj.kksa ls cSBd esa mifLFkr gksus esa vleFkZ gks rks ;g U;kf;d lfpo≶&fofèk ijke'khZ dh vè;{krk esa gksxhA lnL;&lfpo ¼dkjk egkfujh{kd½ jkT; naMkns'k ifjgkj i"kZn~ ds le{k fopkj.k gsrq ÁR;sd canh ds ekeys dks ÁLrqr djsaxsA i"kZn~ ekeys ij fopkj djsxh ,oa viuk fopkj xfBr djsxhA tgka rd O;ogk;Z gks] naMkns'k ifjgkj i"kZn~ loZlEefr ls vuq'kalk djus dk Á;kl djsxhA fQj Hkh folEefr dh n'kk esa cgqer vfHkHkkoh gksxk vkSj og i"kZn~ dk fu.kZ; ekuk tk,xkA ¼x½ fdlh fof'k"V canh dh le;&iwoZ fjgkbZ ds ekeys ij fopkj djrs le; i"kZn~ {keknku] naMkns'k ds ifjgkj vkfn dks jkT; ljdkj }kjk U;k;ky;ksa }kjk] ml fo"k; esa iwoZ ds mnkgj.k ds :i esa vfèkdfFkr lkekU; fl}karksa dks fopkj esa j[ksxkA naMkns'k ifjgkj i"kZn~ ds le{k canh dY;k.k ,oa lekt dY;k.k dk loksZifj è;ku gksxkA i"kZn~ lkekU;r;k fdlh canh dh le;&iwoZ fjgkbZ dks ek=k bl vkèkkj ij vLohdkj ugha djsxh fd iqfyl }kjk mldh fjgkbZ dfri; vrkfdZd ,oa dkYifud voèkkj.kkvksa ds dkj.k vuq'kaflr ugha gSA i"kZn~ mu lHkh ifjfLFkkfr;ksa dks fopkj {ks= esa j[ksxk ftlesa canh }kjk vijkèk fd;k x;k gks] rFkk canh }kjk bl rjg ds ;k vU; fdLe ds vijkèk djus dk :>ku gS ;k ugha] ;k bl rjg dk vijkèk og iqu% dj ldrk gS ;k ughaA ¼?k½ jkT; naMkns'k ifjgkj i"kZn~ }kjk fdlh canh dh le; iwoZ fjgkbZ dh ,d ;k ,d ls vfèkd voljksa ij vLohd`r mlds ekeys ds iqufoZpkj esa ckèkd 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 vofèk chr tkus ij gh fd;k tk;sxkA ¼p½ jkT; naMkns'k ifjgkj i"kZn dh vuq'kalk,a vfoyEc l{ke inkfèkdkjh ds le{k fopkjkFkZ ÁLrqr dh tk;sxhA l{ke inkfèkdkjh jkT; naMkns'k ifjgkj i"kZn~ dh vuq'kalkvksa dks ;k rks Lohdkj djsxk ;k mls vfHkfyf[kr dkj.kksa ds vkèkkj ij vLohd`r djsxk ;k fdlh fof'k"V ekeys ij iqufoZpkj djus ds fy, jkT; naMkns'k ifjgkj i"kZn dks dgsxkA l{ke Ákfèkdkjh dk fu.kZ; lacafèkr canh dks lalwfpr fd;k tk;sxk vkSj ;fn l{ke Ákfèkdkjh us ifjgkj Ánku fd;k gks vkSj mlds le; iwoZ fjgkbZ dk vkns'k fn;k tk pqdk gks] rks canh rqjar l'krZ vFkok fcuk 'kÙkZ dkjk ls eqDr dj fn;k tk;sxkA bl fu;e dk vfHkHkkoh ÁHkkoµbl fu;e dk vfHkHkkoh ÁHkko fcgkj dkjk gLrd ds fu;e&548 ,oa fu;e&552 ij ml gksxk] tgka rd vkthou dkjkokl dh ltk Hkqxr jgs cafn;ksa dks le;&iwoZ fjgkbZ ls lacaèk gksA fcgkj jkT;iky ds vkns'k ls] gLrk{kj ¼vkjŒtsŒ,eŒ fiYyS½ x`g vk;qDr ,oa lfpoA** 18. This Court finds that the detail guidelines by way of procedures provided under various clauses of paragraph (v) to process the case of a convict for premature release have not been followed. 19. In course of argument, this Court called upon learned counsel for the state to answer the following issues:— “(i) Whether as a matter of policy decision or scheme of remission, if any, framed by the State Government in exercise of its power under Section 432 Cr.P.C., the Government is considering the cases for remission of sentence in respect of those who are serving the life imprisonment after commutation of their sentence from death to one of life imprisonment? (ii) If the answer of the above question is in affirmative what are those schemes and guidelines for consideration? (iii) What is the basis of the report submitted by the officer in-charge of the police station saying that if released on remission this petitioner would be a threat to the society or to the victim’s family? (iv) Whether the opinion of the learned Presiding Officer/Judge saying that the petitioner does not deserve any sympathy is based on and is in accordance with the parameters required to be considered under the scheme of the remission?” 20. While answering those issues, the IG Prison and Correctional Services Bihar has filed his affidavit and it is admitted therein that the Government is considering the remission of sentence in respect of those who are serving the life imprisonment after commutation of their sentence from death to one of life imprisonment. If this is the stand of IG Prison, the submission of Mr. Prabhu Narayan Sharma, learned AC to learned AG that the Hon’ble Division Bench has not given the benefit of remission to the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner would not be entitled to get the benefit of remission is wholly misconceived and is liable to be rejected. The Hon’ble Division Bench has not debarred the petitioner from getting the benefit of remission in terms of government policy. Thus, his case is liable to be considered. The judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shriharan @ Murugan (supra) rather helps the petitioner on this score. 21. As regards the remission policy, it is stated that vide letter no. Thus, his case is liable to be considered. The judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shriharan @ Murugan (supra) rather helps the petitioner on this score. 21. As regards the remission policy, it is stated that vide letter no. 550 dated 21.01.1984 it has been clarified that where a sentence of imprisonment for life is imposed on conviction of a person for an offence for which death is one of the punishment provided by law or where sentence of death imposed on a person have been commuted under Section 433 Cr.P.C into one of the imprisonment of life, such person shall not be released from prison unless he had served at least 14 years of imprisonment from the date of conviction and the sum of remission and custody have become 20 years. Section 433 and 433A Cr.P.C. are quoted hereunder for a ready reference:— “433. Power to commute sentence.—The appropriate Government may, without the consent of the person sentenced, commute— (a) a sentence of death, for any other punishment provided by the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860); (b) a sentence of imprisonment for life, for imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years or for fine; (c) a sentence of rigorous imprisonment, for simple imprisonment for any term to which that person might have been sentenced, or for fine; (d) a sentence of simple imprisonment, for fine 1[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.]” 22. Therefore, what is stated by IG Prison in his affidavit as regards consideration of cases of a life convict are nothing but a reiteration of the legal position as under Section 433 and 433A Cr.P.C. 23. The 10.12.2002 notification on which reliance has been placed has already been quoted hereinabove. Therefore, what is stated by IG Prison in his affidavit as regards consideration of cases of a life convict are nothing but a reiteration of the legal position as under Section 433 and 433A Cr.P.C. 23. The 10.12.2002 notification on which reliance has been placed has already been quoted hereinabove. In view of the categorical finding of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, the case of the petitioner cannot be brought within any of the exceptions so as to render him ineligible from consideration. 24. This Court, therefore, arrives on a conclusion that the decision of the Remission Board taken in it’s meeting held on 27.01.2020 is completely arbitrary and bad in law, hence, the same is liable to be set aside. In result, this Court sets aside the decision of the Remission Board as contained in it’s minutes dated 27.01.2020 (Annexure ‘2’ to the writ application) in respect of this petitioner. 25. The Remission Board is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for premature release in the very next meeting of the board which may be likely to be held after receipt/communication of this order but in any case such decision must be taken within two months from the date of receipt/communication of this order. It goes without saying that the Remission Board shall follow the procedures in terms of the Government’s Policy i.e. Notification dated 10.12.2002 and in the light of the discussions made in this judgment. 26. The writ application is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.