ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Prabhu Narayan Sharma, learned AC to AG for the State in both the writ applications. 2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, these two writ applications have been taken up together for consideration. 3. In Cr.W.J.C. No. 861 of 2021, there are three petitioners who are seeking quashing of the decision of Bihar State Remission Board (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Board’) taken on 05.03.2020 whereby and whereunder the Board has rejected the proposal for the pre-mature release of the petitioners. 4. The Board has rejected their cases for pre-mature release on the ground contained under Clause (IV) ([k) of the notification no. 3106 dated 10.12.2002 issued by the Home (Special) Department, Government of Bihar. The Board has also found that there was an adverse report of the Superintendent of Police and the Presiding Officer of the convicting court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has by filing I.A. No. 1 of 2021 made a prayer to quash the decision of the Board taken on 27.08.2021 and communicated under letter no. 9555 dated 18.11.2021 in so far as it relates to petitioner nos. 1 and 2 whereby and whereunder the Board has been pleased to reject the prayer of the petitioners for their pre-mature release inter-alia on the ground that under Clause IV ([k) of the Notification No. 3106 dated 10.12.2002. As regards, one of the petitioners i.e. petitioner no. 3 learned counsel has filed another interlocutory application being I.A. No. 2 of 2021 to challenge the decision dated 01.11.2021 by which the prayer of the petitioner no. 3 for pre-mature release has been rejected on similar consideration. 6. In Cr.W.J.C. No. 1310 of 2022, the sole petitioner has prayed for quashing of the decision of Board taken on 01.11.2021 and communicated to all concerned vide letter no. 4679 dated 21.04.2022 in so far as it relates to the petitioner whereby and whereunder the Board has rejected the proposal for pre-mature release of the petitioner in the light of the Clause IV ([k) letter no. 3106 dated 10.12.2002 which is said to have been published in the Gazette dated 28.12.2002. 7. 4679 dated 21.04.2022 in so far as it relates to the petitioner whereby and whereunder the Board has rejected the proposal for pre-mature release of the petitioner in the light of the Clause IV ([k) letter no. 3106 dated 10.12.2002 which is said to have been published in the Gazette dated 28.12.2002. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ applications have assailed the impugned orders mainly on two grounds as under: – (1) The Board is not justified in applying the 2002 policy in respect of these petitioners for the reason that admittedly the said policy has been implemented practically after 25.09.2007 and prior to this date the convicts similarly situated to the petitioners were considered under the 1984 policy. It is submitted that prior to 25.09.2007 several persons were released by the respondent authorities, therefore, following the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Cr.W.J.C. No. 748 of 2017 (Chandra Kant Kumar vs. The State of Bihar and Others) it was incumbent upon the Board to give similar treatment to these petitioners. (2) It is further submitted that for any reason even if 2002 policy is applied against the petitioners, there being no finding of the learned Trial Court that the petitioners had committed the offence of murder in an organized manner with a pre-plan or in pre-meditated manner, the cases of these petitioners would not be covered under Clause (IV) ([k) of the notification no. 3106 of 2002. 8. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this court in Cr.W.J.C. No. 748 of 2017 as also a learned single judge judgment of this Court in Cr. W.J.C No. 236 of 2021 (Surendra Mahto vs. The State of Bihar and Others reported in 2021 (4) PLJR 393 [: 2021 (6) BLJ 271 ]). It is his submission that petitioners would also be entitled for consideration of their cases for pre-mature release on the ground of reverse discrimination. Learned counsel has relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. G. Sadasivan Nair vs. Cochin University of Science and Technology and Others reported in (2022)4 SCC 404 to submit that a plea of reverse discrimination may be invoked in the nature of these cases. 9. Learned counsel has relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. G. Sadasivan Nair vs. Cochin University of Science and Technology and Others reported in (2022)4 SCC 404 to submit that a plea of reverse discrimination may be invoked in the nature of these cases. 9. Learned counsel has further relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Chander vs. The State of Chhattisgarh and Another reported in (2022) SCC Online SC 500. Submissions on behalf of the State 10. On the other hand, Mr. Prabhu Narayan Sharma, learned AC to AG has opposed these writ applications. Learned counsel has vehemently submitted that so far as the notification of 10.12.2002 is concerned, the same came into force with immediate effect. He has tried to explain this Court as to why the Remission Board could not take decision prior to 25.09.2007. One of the reasons informed to this Court is that the two members who were required to be nominated in the Remission Board were nominated only on or about 30.07.2005 whereafter the meeting of the Remission Board took place. 11. Learned AC to AG, however, admits at the Bar that prior to 25.09.2007 the convicts under Section 302 I.P.C. who were similarly situated to the petitioners were released. Learned counsel submits that all those similarly situated persons would confer no right upon these petitioners to seek similar benefits. Admittedly, the date of conviction of these petitioners is 30.06.2006 i.e. the period during which the cases of others who were also convicted after publication of notification no. 3106 dated 10.12.2002, were considered by the said authorities and not by the other authorities and not by the Board and they were ordered to be released. Much emphasis has been given on his submission that the notification of 2002 has came into force on or about 28.12.2002 and it has an overriding effect over rules 548 and 549 of the Bihar Jail Manual. Hence, it is submitted that the cases of these petitioners are liable to be considered in the light of the policy decision of the government which was notified on 28.12.2002. 12. In course of argument, learned counsel for the State has placed before this Court number of documents. This Court finds that earlier the Government of Bihar in its Department of Law had issued a letter bearing no. 12. In course of argument, learned counsel for the State has placed before this Court number of documents. This Court finds that earlier the Government of Bihar in its Department of Law had issued a letter bearing no. 03/91-550 dated 21.01.1984. The said letter is being reproduced hereunder for a ready reference: – ^^la[;k&,Œ@ihŒ,e&03@91&550 fcgkj ljdkj] fof/k foHkkx] izss"kd] Jh Jh nso feJ] ljdkj ds lfpo] fcgkjA lsok esa] dkjk egkfujh{kd] fcgkj] iVukA iVuk] fnukad] 21 tuojh] 1984 bZ0A fo"k;&vkthou dkjkokl dh ltk okys cafn;ksa dh eqfDrA egk'k;] funs'kkuqlkj eq>s dguk gS fd jkT; ljdkj us fu.kZ; fy;k gS fd ftl vfHk;qDr dks vkthou dkjkokl dk n.M fn;k x;k gkss] mls ifjgkj nsus ds gsrq ,oa rn~ksijkUr dkjk ls eqfDr gsrq **vkthou dkjkokl** dh 20 o"kks± dk dkjkokl ekuk tk; rFkk vkthou dkjkokl dh ltk okys cafn;ksa dks eqDr djus ds ekeys esa fuEufyf[kr izfØ;k viukbZ tk;& 1- n.M izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 vfèkfu;e la[;k 2] 1974A dh èkkjk 429 vUrxZr vuqekU; izfrosnu ¼vLi"V½ dk ykHk vkthou dkjkokl ikus okys canh dks ugha feysxk vFkkZr ftl okn esa mls vkthou dkjkokl dk n.M fn;k x;k gS] ml okn ds vuqlaèkku] tk¡p ,oa oukj.k dh vofèk esa rFkk nks"kfl) dh frfFk ds iwoZ dkjk esa fcrkbZ xbZ vofèk 20 o"kZ ds dkjkokl esa ls ?kVkbZ tk ldsxhA 2- nks"kfl) gks tkus ij ;fn fdlh dks ,sls vijk/k ds fy, vkthou dkjkokl dk n.M fn;k x;k gks ftlds fy;s fn;s tkus okys n.Mksa esa ls ,d e`R;q n.M gks vFkok ;fn naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 dh /kkjk 433 ds vUrxZr e`R;qn.M dks vkthou dkjkokl ls :ikUrfjr dj fn;k x;k gks] rFkk bl izdkj vkthou dkjkokl dk naM fnukad 18-12-1978 dks vFkok blds ckn fn;k x;k gks] rc ,sls canh dks rHkh dkjk ls eqDr fd;k tk ldsxk] tc& d- mlus nks"kfl) gksus dh frfFk ls 14 o"kks± dh vof/k dkjk esa O;rhr dj yh gks [k- ifjgkj rFkk dkjkokl dh vof/k dk ;ksxQy 20 o"kZ gks x;k gks 3- vkthou dkjkokl ds naM okys vU; cafn;ksa dks ifjgkj lesr dkjkokl dh vof/k 20 o"kZ gks tkus ij eqDr fd;k tk ldsxkA bl] vkns'k ls lHkh dkjk/h{kdksa dks lwpuk ,oa vko';d dk;Z gsrq voxr djk fn;k tk;A vkidk fo'okl Hkktu] g0@&Jhnso feJ] ljdkj ds lfpo] fof/k foHkkxA** 13. The Department of Law, Government of Bihar came out with another letter bearing no. The Department of Law, Government of Bihar came out with another letter bearing no. 2939 dated 29th June, 2007 by which Paragraph ‘2’ of the earlier letter dated 21st January, 1984 was superseded and the same was substituted vide letter dated 29th June, 2007. This Court therefore, deems it just and proper to reproduce the letter dated 29th June, 2007 as under: – ^^lafpdk laŒ&,ŒihŒ,eŒ&03@81*va'k* 2939 ts0 fcgkj ljdkj] fofèk foHkkx] izs"kd] ;ksxsUnz izlkn] lfpo≶&fofèk ijke'khZ fofèk foHkkx] fcgkj] iVukA lsok esa] dkjk egkfujh{kd] fcgkj] iVukA iVuk] fnukad 29 twu] 2007 bZñA fo"k;%&vkthou dkjkokl dh ltk okys cafn;ksa dh eqfDrA egksn;] funs'kkuqlkj eq>s vuqjksèk djuk gS fd fofèk foHkkxh; i=kad&,ñ@ihñ,eñ 03@81&550 fnuakd 21 tuojh] 1984 ds izlax esa jkT; ljdkj }kjk mDr i= dh dafMdk&2 dks iw.kZr% foyksfir djrs gq, fuEufyf[kr }kjk izfrLFkkfir djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gSA %& 2- nks"kfl) gks tkus ij ;fn fdlh ,sls vijkèk ds fy, vkthou dkjkokl dk naM fn;k x;k gks] ftlds fy, fn;s tkus okys n.Mksa esa ls ,d e`R;qnaM gks vFkok e`R;qnaM dks vkthou dkjkokl esa :ikUrfjr dj fn;k x;k gks] dks eqDr djus dk fu.kZ;] jkT; ljdkj vFkok jkT; ljdkj }kjk xfBr ^jkT; naMkns'k ifjgkj i"kZn~* ds }kjk fy;k tk;sxkA** fo'oklHkktu gñ@& ¼;ksxsUnz izlkn½ ljdkj ds lfpo] fcgkj] iVukA** 14. Learned counsel for the State has further pointed out the subsequent letters issued by the I.G. (Prison) on 2nd July, 2007 and the letter dated 19.09.2007 issued by the Secretory of the Department of Law, Government of Bihar which are again being reproduced hereunder for a ready reference: – ^^i=kad 4125 fcgkj ljdkj] dkjk fujh{k.kky; x`g ¼dkjk½ foHkkx] izs"kd%&lanhi ikS.Mjhd dkjk egkfujh{kd fcgkj] iVukA lsok esa] lHkh ftyk inkfèkdkjhA lHkh dkjkèkh{kdA iVuk] fnukad 2 tqykbZ] 2007A fo"k;%&vkthou dkjkokl dh ltk okys cafn;ksa dh eqfDrA egk'k;] ljdkj ds lfpo] fofèk foHkkx ds i=kad 2939 ts- fnukad&29-06-07 }kjk lfpo] fofèk ¼U;k;½ foHkkx] fcgkj ljdkj ds i=kad ,ñ@ihñ,eñ&03@81&550 fnukad 21-01-1984 dh dafMdk 2 dks foyksfir djrs gq, fuEu izdkj izfrLFkkfir fd;k x;k gS%& ^^fl)nks"k gks tkus ij ;fn fdlh dks ,sls vijkèk ds fy, vkthou dkjkokl dk naM fn;k x;k gks] ftlds fy, fn;s tkus okys naMksa esa ls ,d e`R;qnaM gks vFkok e`R;qnaM dks vkthou dkjkokl esa :ikarfjr dj fn;k x;k gks] dks eqDr djus dk fu.kZ; jkT; ljdkj vFkok jkT; ljdkj }kjk xfBr jkT; naMkns'k ifjgkj i"kZn ds }kjk fy;k tk,xkA lqYkHk lanHkZ ds fy, mijksDr nksuksa i=ksa dh izfr layXu dh tk jgh gSA mijksDr ls ;g Li"V gS fd vkthou dkjkokl dh naM izkIr O;fDr;ksa ds ekeys esa foeqDr djus dk fu.kZ; jkT; ljdkj ,oa jkT; ljdkj }kjk xfBr jkT; naMkns'k ifjgkj i"kZn }kjk fy;k tkuk pkfg, rFkk tsy vèkh{kdksa }kjk vius Lrj ls vkthou dkjkokl dh ltk izkIr O;fDr dks eqDr ugha fd;k tkuk pkfg,A vr% vkidks funsZ'k fn;k tkrk gS fd mijksDr i= ds vkyksd esa vkthou dkjkokl dh ltk izkIr fdlh Hkh O;fDr dks vius Lrj ls eqDr ugha djsa rFkk ,sls ekeyksa esa bl dk;kZy; dh i=kad 1621 fnukad 01-03-07 }kjk fn;s x;s funsZ'k ds vuqlkj jkT; naMkns'k ifjgkj i"kZn ds le{k ekeys ij fu.kZ; gsrq iw.kZ izLrko canh dh ifjgkj jfgr 14 o"kZ rFkk ifjgkj lfgr 20 o"kZ gksus dh frfFk ds 6 ekg ds iwoZ Hkstuk lqfuf'pr djsaA fo'oklHkktu gñ@& dkjk egkfujh{kd] fcgkj] iVukA i=k la[;k&,ñihñ,lñ&03@81^va'k* 5225 ts0 fcgkj ljdkj] fofèk U;k; foHkkxA ;ksxsUnz izlkn] ljdkj ds lfpo] fcgkjA iVuk] fnukad 19-9-2007 fo"k;%&vkthou dkjkokl dh ltk okys cafn;ksa dh eqfDrA izlax%&vkidk i=kad 4126, fnukad 2-7-2007 egk'k;] funsZ'kkuqlkj mi;qZDr fo"k; ,oa izlax ds lanHkZ esa lwfpr djuk gS fd jkT; ljdkj us fofèk foHkkxh; i=kad&,ñ@ihñ,e&03@91&550 fnukad 21 tuojh] 1984 dks la'kksfèkr djrs gq, mldh dafMdk&3 ds ckn fuEufyf[kr ,d ijarqd tksM+us dk fu.kZ; fy;k gS%& ^^ijUrq eqDr djus dk fu.kZ; jkT; ljdkj vFkok jkT; ljdkj }kjk xfBr jkT; naMkns'k ifjgkj ik"kZn }kjk fy;k tk,XkkA** vr,o vuqjksèk gS fd bl fu.kZ; ls lHkh dkjkokfl;ksa dks lwpuk gS fd vko';d dkjZokbZ gsrq d`i;k voxr djk fn;k tk;A fo'oklHkktu gñ@& ljdkj ds lfpo] fcgkjA** 15. It is his submission that for the first time, the State Remission Board in its meeting held on 25.09.2007 considered the cases of some of the convicts for pre-mature release. Prior to 25.09.2007 the cases for pre-mature release were considered by the Jail Superintendent and the orders were being passed in the light of the 1984 policy. 16. On the point of applicability of 2002 policy, the learned counsel for the State submits that Clause (IV) ([k) of the said notification earlier applies in the cases of these petitioners because they have been found involved in commission of murder and murder is a heinous crime, therefore, it is to be taken as a planned murder and the cases of planned murder would be covered under the aforesaid clauses. Learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court towards the opinion of the presiding officer in the case of one of the petitioners Md. Allauddin Ansari to submit that the learned presiding officer had also recorded an adverse opinion against the release of the petitioners. Similar was the opinion in respect of others. 17. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State as also on perusal of the records, this Court finds that in this case the date of conviction of the petitioners is 30.06.2006. It is an admitted position as noticed hereinabove that even the cases of the convicts of the period after 2002 policy were considered by the Jail Superintendent prior to 25.09.2007 and they were granted the benefit of pre-mature release under 1984 policy. The Hon’ble Divison Bench of this Court in Cr.W.J.C. No. 748 of 2017 (Chandra Kant Kumar vs. The State of Bihar and Others) has recorded the same in those cases in which similarly situated co-convicts were granted benefit of pre-mature release. The Hon’ble Division Bench has taken note of the fact that the Remission Board was constituted for the first time in the year 2007 and has further recorded that there was no denial of this fact from the side of the State. 18. The notification no. The Hon’ble Division Bench has taken note of the fact that the Remission Board was constituted for the first time in the year 2007 and has further recorded that there was no denial of this fact from the side of the State. 18. The notification no. 3106 dated 10.12.2002 is being reproduced hereunder for a ready reference: – ^^fcgkj ljdkj] x`g ¼fo'ks"k½ foHkkx] vfèklwpuk iVuk] fnukad 10 fnlEcj la[;k&ds@dkjk&fofoèk&63@2001&3106@dkjk vfèkfu;e] 1894 dh èkkjk 59 }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;kas dk iz;ksx djrs gq, jkT; ljdkj fcgkj dkjk gLrd esa rqjar ds izHkko ls fuEufyf[kr la'kksèku djrh%& la'kksèku fcgkj dkjk gLrd dk fu;e 529 fuEufyf[kr }kjk izfrLFkkfir fd;k tk,xk] ;Fkk] (i) jkT; naMkns'k ifjgkj i"kZn dk xBu fcgkj 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 djsxh ;g i"kZn~ ,d LFkk;h fudk; ¼ckMh½ 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= U;k;kèkh'k & lnL; 4- funs'kd] ifjOkh{kk lsok,¡ & lnL; 5- vkj{kh egkfuns'kd }kjk uke funsZf'kr vkj{kh egkfujh{kd & lnL; 6- dkjk egkfujh{kd & lnL;&lfpo bl i"kZ~n 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.kiwfRrZ iwfrZ ugha gksus ij] i"kZn dh cSBd ugha gksxhA i"kZn~ dh x.kiwfRrZ vè;{k dh lfEefyr djrs gq, pkj lnL; ls gksxhA (ii) i"kZn~ dh cSBd dh vofèk jkT; 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 rFkkfir i"kZn~ ds vè;{k] ;fn vko';d le>s] rks i"kZn~ dh ,d ls vfèkd cSBdsa ,d frekgh esa cqyk ldsaxsA (iii) le;&iwoZ fjgkbZ ds fy, vgZrk jkT; naMkns'k ifjgkj i"kZn }kjk le;&iwoZ fjgkbZ ds fy, fopkj gsrq fuEufyf[kr dksfV ds canh ik=k gksaxs %& ¼d½ izR;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 izkoèkkuksa ls vkPNkfnr gks] fcuk ifjgkj ds de&ls&de 14] o"kks± 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 izkIr iq:"k fl)nks"k canh ifjgkj lfgr 14 o"kks± dh U;wure ltk Hkqxrus vkSj fcuk ifjgkj ds 10 o"kks± 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"kks± dh U;wure ltk Hkqxrus vkSj fcuk ifjgkj ds 7 o"kks±sZ dh okLrfod ltk vofèk iwjh djus ds mijkUr le; iwoZ fjgkbZ ds fy, fopkj djus dh ik= 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"kks± ds llkeu dh ltk dkV yh gksA ¼Pk½ vkthou dkjkokl dk naM Hkqxr jgs oSls fl)nks"k canh tks dSalj] ,M~l] Bhd uk gksus okyh fdMuh dh chekjh] ân; ,oa 'okl ls twM+s vlkè; jksx ,oa vU; ,slh NwvkNwr okyh chekjh ls xzLr gksa] tSlk fd fpfdRldksa ds ,d cksMZ }kjk izekf.kr gks] ;fn mUgksaus 5 o"kks± ds okLrfod vFkok ifjgkj lfgr 7 o"kksZ dk naM Hkqxr fy;k gkAs (iv) le;&iwoZ fjgkbZ ds fy, v;ksX;rk fuEukafdr Js.kh ds fl)nks"k canh] tks vkthou dkjkokl dk naM Hkqxr jgs gksa] 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 ढ+ax ls gR;k,¡ vk;ksftr djus ds fy, fl)nks"k gksA 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 dŸkZZO; ij jgus okys yksd lsodksa dh gR;k dk nks"kh gksA ¼v½ ifjgkj i"kZn ds fopkj ds fy, ekeyksa ds izLrqrhdj.k dh izfØ;k ¼d½ dsUnzh;@ftyk dkjk ds izR;sd vèkh{kd] ftuds ikl vkthou dkjkokl dh ltk Hkqxr jgs canh gks] le;&iwoZ fjgkbZ ds fy, fofgr vgZrkvksa ds vuqlkj fopkj&{ks=ks esa vkus ds fy, fdlh canh ds vgZrk jkT; ljdkj }kjk bl fufeÙk vfèkdfFkr ekunaM ds vuqlkj fopkj.k ds ;ksX; cafn;ksa ds gksus dh frfFk ls 3 ekg igys ls muds ekeyksa dh izfØ;k izkjEHk djsxkA ¼[k½ dkjk vèkh{kd ,sls izR;sd ekeys esa ,d foLr`r fVIi.kh canh dh ikfjokfjd ,oa lkekftd i`"BHkwfe nsrs gq, rS;kj djsxkA mudh fVIi.kh eas ;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 izdk'k MkysaxsA mlds 'kkjhfjd] ekufld LokLF; ;k dksbZ xaHkhj fcekjh gS] ftlls canh ihfM+r gS dh mls le;&iwoZ fjgkbZ ds fy, fo'ks"k fopkj.k ds fy, gdnkj cukrh gks] ds ckjs esa ,d izfrosnu 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 izR;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] dgk¡ lkekU;r;k fuokl djrk Fkk vFkok dkjkeqDr gksus ds ckn og iqu% dgk¡ clus okyk gSA fQj Hkh] canh tgk¡ vijkèk djus ds le; lkekU;r;k fuokl djrk Fkk mlds fHkUu LFkku] tgk¡ 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 izfr 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 izsf"kr djsxkA ¼?k½ lacafèkr vkj{kh vèkh{kd funsZ'k izkIr 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 uk gks rks os rdZiw.kZ dkj.kksa ,oa rF;ksa ls mls U;k;ksfpr Bgjk,sxasA os funsZ'k izkfIr 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 ijoh{kk lsok dks Hkh bl lacaèk esa funsZ'k djsxas ,oa mUgsa viuh fVIi.kh dh ,d izfr Hkh vxzlkfjr dj nsaxsA funsZ'k dh izkfIr ij] canh dY;k.k inkfèkdkjh funs'kd] ifjoh{kk lsok Lo;a djsaxs] vFkok fdlh ifjoh{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,xsaA os ;a=kor~ dk;Z ugha djsaxs ,oa izR;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 dk U;k;ksfpr Bgjk,xsA canh dY;k.k inkfèkdkjh@funs'kd ifjoh{kk lsok viuk izfrosnu@vuq'kalk funsZ'k dh izkfIr ls 30 fnuksa ds Hkhrj dkjkèkh{kd dks lqiwnZ dj nsaxsA ¼N½ vkj{kh vèkh{kd rFkk canh dY;k.k inkfèkdkjh@funs'kd ifjoh{kk lsok ds izfrosnu&vuq'kalk izkIr gksus ij] dkjkèkh{kd jkT; naMkns'k ifjgkj i"kZn~ dh izLrkfor 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 izfrosnuksa@vuq'kalkvksa dks è;ku esa j[krs gq, djsaxsaA vkj{kh vèkh{kd rFkk canh dY;k.k inkfèkdkjh@funs'kd ifjoh{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'kkas dks Hkh è;ku esa j[kk tk,xkA ifjgkj i"kZn ds fy, izfØ;k ,oa fn'kk funsZ'k 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 izfr 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;{rk esa gksxhA&lnL&lfpo ¼dkjk egkfujh{kd½ jkT; naMkns'k ifjgkj i"kZn~ ds le{k fopkj.k gsrq izR;sd canh ds ekeys dks izLrqr 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 iz;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 ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks fopkj {ks=k esa j[skxk 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 ekeysa ds iqufoZpkj esa ckèkd ugha gksxhA fQj Hkh] fdlh fl)nks"k canh ds vLohd`r ekeys ij iqufoZpkj mlds ekeys esa iwoZ eas 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 izLrqr 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 izkfèkdkjh dk fu.kZ; lacafèkr canh dks lalwfpr fd;k tk;sxk vkSj ;fn l{ke izkfèkdkjh us ifjgkj iznku fd;k gks vkSj mlds le; iwoZ fjgkbZ dk vkns'k fn;k tk pqdk gks] rks canh rqjar l'krZ vFkok fcuk 'kRrZ dkjk ls eqDr dj fn;k tk;sxkA bl fu;e dk vfHkHkkoh izHkko bl fu;e dk vfHkHkkoh izHkko fcgkj dkjk gLrd ds fu;e&548 ,oa fu;e&552 ij ml gksxk] tgk¡ rd vkthou dkjkokl dh ltk Hkqxr jgs cafn;ksa dks le;&iwoZ fjgkbZ ls lacaèk gksA fcgkj jkT;iky ds vkns'k ls] gñ ¼vkj- ts- ,e- fiYyS½ x`g vk;qDr ,oa lfpo** 19. This Court has occasion to discuss the aforementioned judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench in the case of Surendra Mahto (supra) and having discussed the policies existing prior to implementation of the 2002 policy, this Court directed the Board to consider the case of the said petitioner for pre-mature release. The judgment of this Court in the case of Surendra Mahto (supra) has also attained finality as no special leave petition appeal was preferred against the same. Paragraph ‘51’ of the judgment in the case of Surendra Mahto (supra) reads as under: – “51. In the present case since this Court has come to a conclusion that 2002 notification cannot be applied against the petitioner and his case is liable to be considered on the same pedestal on which the cases of other life convicts who were awarded life conviction in the year 2003 as have been discussed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in Cr.WJC No.748 of 2017 have been considered, this Court is of the view that the case of the petitioner cannot be rejected on the ground that the Hon’ble Apex Court has awarded full life imprisonment. The essence of the matter is that if under the policy decision of the government the petitioner is entitled to be considered for remission then he must be considered. The constitutional power under Article 72 and 161 of the Constitution of India and the statutory power under Section 432 Cr.P.C. still remains. Thus the second ground taken by the Remission Board for rejection of the case of the petitioner also fails.” 20. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that there being an admitted position that 2002 policy was not implemented prior to 25.09.2007, the cases of the petitioners would be liable to be treated in the light of the Hon’ble Division Bench judgment in case of Cr.W.J.C. No. 748 of 2017 and the judgment of the learned Single Bench of this Court in the case of Surendra Mahto (supra). To this Court, it appears that the date of publication of the policy would lose its significance in the facts and circumstance of the case and if two views may, be possibly taken, this Court would lean in favour of the convicts who are looking for consideration of their cases for pre-mature release. 21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has in the case of Dr. 21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has in the case of Dr. G. Sadasivan Nair (supra), while dealing with a case of service matter one of the contentions before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was as under: – “19. In relation to the appellant's contention that other employees of the respondent University who were similarly situated as the appellant, had been granted the benefit under Rule 25(a), it was submitted that the appellant cannot claim such relief relying on an earlier illegal order. That such a claim based on negative equality in favour of the appellant was untenable.” 22. The aforementioned contention has been answered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paragraph ‘33’ which is being reproduced hereunder: – “33. Therefore, we are of the view that if the respondent University sought to deny the benefit of Rule 25(a), in light of the proviso which was subsequently inserted thereby limiting the benefit of the Rule, it ought to have done so uniformly. The proviso could have been made applicable in relation to all employees who retired from service of the respondent University following the introduction of the proviso i.e. after 12-2-1985. However, the action of the respondent University of selectively applying the proviso to Rule 25(a) in relation to the appellant, while not applying the said proviso in relation to similarly situated persons, is arbitrary and therefore illegal. Such discrimination, which is not based on any reasonable classification, is violative of all canons of equality which are enshrined in the Constitution of India.” 23. The same reasoning and rationale if applied in this case, this Court would come to a conclusion that once the state government has given benefit of 1984 policy to the convicts of the period after publication of notification no. 3106 dated 10.12.2002 and prior to 25.09.2007 the same benefit must be granted to the similarly situated persons. 24. This Court further finds that in course of hearing, learned counsel for the State could not demonstrate from the learned trial’s court judgment any finding that it was an organized crime with a pre-meditation of mind. Learned counsel for the State has definitely tried his level best to submit that if the definition of planned murder is gone through in the dictionary, this kind of murder is to be taken as falling in the category of planned murder. Learned counsel for the State has definitely tried his level best to submit that if the definition of planned murder is gone through in the dictionary, this kind of murder is to be taken as falling in the category of planned murder. This Court is afraid that such submission of the learned counsel for the State cannot be allowed to be taken to defeat the very purpose of the policy towards pre-mature release. This Court cannot by looking into the dictionary meaning of a word, allow learned counsel for the State to add something in the judgment of the learned trial court which is not there. 25. To this Court, it further appears that the learned presiding officer while recording his judgment has been swayed away by the fact that it was a case of murder. He has written about the manner of occurrence but nowhere stated in his report that the trial court has anywhere found it a case of organized murder. No further material has been placed before this Court. 26. This Court further finds that the report of the S.P. is full of surmises and conjectures. In a completely vague words, it is stated that in course of inquiry from the villagers it was found that in case of release of these petitioners some untowards occurrence may take place. This Court finds no basis in the report of the S.P. so as to take this view. These petitioners have remained in actual custody about 20 years by now. It is very difficult for this Court to understand how this kind of surmises and conjectures may be made by an officer in the rank of Superintendent of Police. A person who has remained imprisoned for 20 years and there is no adverse report against him by the Probation Officer may be denied privilege of pre-mature release on a vague mention in the report of S.P. that on their release there may be chances of any untoward happening. This Court has been informed that the report of the Probation Officer rather says about good conduct of the petitioners. The opinion of this Court is that the report of the Probation Officer would carry more weight as he is the person who has occasion to watch the behavioral pattern of the convicts/petitioners inside the jail. 27. This Court has been informed that the report of the Probation Officer rather says about good conduct of the petitioners. The opinion of this Court is that the report of the Probation Officer would carry more weight as he is the person who has occasion to watch the behavioral pattern of the convicts/petitioners inside the jail. 27. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds that the decision taken by the Remission Board in respect of these petitioners cannot sustain the test of law. The impugned orders are hereby set aside. These writ applications are allowed. The State Remission Board through its Chairman (Respondent no. 2) is directed to convene its meeting within a period of one month from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order and consider the cases of these petitioners for pre-mature release keeping in mind the discussions made hereinabove. 28. The writ applications and the I.As. are accordingly allowed.