JUDGMENT : RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J. 1. This writ petition was initially preferred seeking quashing of the decision contained in Memo No. 11911 dated 20.10.2022 issued under the signature of respondent no. 2 whereby and whereunder the application filed by the father of the petitioner to review/reappraisal of the decision of the respondent no. 3 i.e. the State Sentence Remission Board (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Remission Board’) has been rejected saying that since the decision has already been taken by the Remission Board, there is no occasion for him to interfere in the matter. Brief Facts of the Case 2. It appears from the records that the petitioner in this case has been found guilty of committing crime under Section 364A/120B, 302/34 and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’). The learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court has held that the charge of conspiracy in relation to offence under Section 364A read with Section 120B IPC has been found proved beyond all reasonable doubts against this petitioner. In paragraph ‘59’ of its judgment, the learned trial court has held that the victim boy identified the co-accused Sanjay @ Pandit and being afraid of it, they planned to kill the said boy. Accordingly, they took the boy under a ‘Pulia’. There, the accused Chintoo Singh killed the boy in a most barbaric manner and his dead body was recovered by police of Fakuli O.P. They committed this murder after they realised the ransom amount. 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has remained in incarceration for more than 14 years in actual and more than 20 years with remission. His application for premature release in terms of Government’s policy was considered by the Remission Board, the same did not find favour and it was rejected in the meeting held on 19.05.2021. The Remission Board held that the case of the petitioner would be covered under clause (iv) ¼d½ of the Notification No. 3106 dated 10.12.2002 issued by the Home, Special Department, Government of Bihar. The Remission Board held that the case of the petitioner would be covered under clause (iv) ¼d½ of the Notification No. 3106 dated 10.12.2002 issued by the Home, Special Department, Government of Bihar. The decision of the Remission Board contains an observation from the judgment of the learned trial court wherein it has been inter-alia recorded that the convict has committed murder of informant’s minor son aged about 5 years in most barbaric manner and even after committing murder of the said boy, even as they realised ransom from the informant and as such, the case falls within the ambit of rarest of the rare cases. Remission Board’s Decision during Pendency of the Writ Petition. 4. It further appears that during pendency of the writ petition, the Remission Board once again took up the case of the petitioner for consideration. This time, the Remission Board in its meeting held on 24.04.2023 (Annexure ‘7’ to the I.A. No. 01 of 2023) observed that the report of the Superintendent of Police is adverse. It is further recorded that the case of the petitioner would be covered by clause (iv) ¼d½ of Notification No. 3106 dated 10.12.2002 as the petitioner is guilty of committing murder of 5 years old son of the informant in a planned manner, he would not be entitled to get premature release. The decision of the Remission Board taken in its meeting held on 20.04.2023 has been challenged by filing I.A. No. 01 of 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the impugned decision’). The said Interlocutory Application No. 01 of 2023 has been allowed. The State was given an opportunity to file an additional counter affidavit and accordingly, an additional counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State whereafter the matter has been heard at length. Submissions of the Petitioner 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned decision as contained in Annexure ‘7’ on the ground that the adverse report of the Superintendent of Police has been taken into consideration by the Remission Board without looking into the guidelines given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rajo @ Rajwa @ Rajendra Mandal Vs. State of Bihar and others, 2023 INSC 771 (Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 252/2023). State of Bihar and others, 2023 INSC 771 (Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 252/2023). It is submitted that earlier in the meeting held on 19.05.2021, all the reports of the authorities were in favour of the petitioner but this time, an adverse report was given by the Superintendent of Police by merely recording the alleged statement of the informant that because of the conviction of the petitioner, his family members are very angry and they are often threatening the informant, therefore, the informant and his family members are afraid of premature release of the petitioner. They apprehend that any untoward incident may take place on release of the petitioner. For this reason, the Superintendent of Police has not recommended the proposal for premature release of the petitioner. 6. Learned senior counsel submits that the petitioner has remained in incarceration for more than 14 years by now and at this stage, when his application for premature release is being considered, it is alleged that the informant and his family members are often being threatened by the family members of the petitioner. This, according to learned senior counsel for the petitioner, is nothing but a mere false and flimsy statement to deprive the petitioner from getting benefit of the premature release under the Government’s policy. 7. Learned Senior Counsel has further assailed Annexure ‘7’ to the interlocutory application on the ground that the case of the petitioner would not be covered under clause (iv) ¼d½ of the Notification No. 3106 dated 10.12.2002. It is submitted that in the case of Anuj Kumar Gupta @ Sethi Gupta vs. State of Bihar and Others, 2002 (1) BLJ 67 and Ajit Kumar Mishra Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. 2023 (4) PLJR 782 , this Court has relied upon its earlier judgment in the case of Pradeep Kumar Srivastava @ Pradip Kumar Srivastava vs. State of Bihar and Ors. 2022 (1) PLJR 217 . In all the judgments, it has been held that the clause (iv) ¼d½ of Notification No. 3106 dated 10.12.2002 nowhere specifically provides that an offence under Section 364A would be covered under the exception clause. It has been held that the relevant clause (iv) ¼d½ does not take within its compass a case of the convict under Section 364A IPC. In all the judgments, it has been held that the clause (iv) ¼d½ of Notification No. 3106 dated 10.12.2002 nowhere specifically provides that an offence under Section 364A would be covered under the exception clause. It has been held that the relevant clause (iv) ¼d½ does not take within its compass a case of the convict under Section 364A IPC. It is, thus, submitted that the Remission Board is not justified in rejecting the proposal for premature release of the petitioner in the present case. Submissions on behalf of the State 8. On the other hand, learned AC to AG for the State has opposed the writ petition. It is submitted that the Remission Board is of the opinion that the offence of kidnapping with murder is as heinous as offence of rape, dacoity and the terrorist crime. Since the petitioner was convicted for kidnapping with criminal conspiracy and planned murder of a 5 years old child, so the Remission Board rejected the proposal of the petitioner for premature release. It is further submitted that in the case of Chitranjan Kumar @ Babloo vs. State of Bihar and Others (Cr.WJC No. 1330 of 2021), the learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has been pleased to reject the writ application against the decision of the Remission Board. In the said case, the Remission Board refused to grant benefit of premature release to the petitioner who had been convicted for the offences under Sections 364, 364A/34 and 120B of the IPC. It is pointed out that recently in the case of Munna Singh @ Ajay Sharma vs. State of Bihar and Others (Cr.WJC No. 722 of 2023), this Court has been pleased to refer the matter to the Hon’ble Larger Bench after this Court noticed that earlier judgment of this Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Srivastava (supra) had not been placed before the learned Co-ordinate Bench and since Munna Singh @ Ajay Sharma and Chitranjan Kumar @ Babloo had been convicted in the same and one trial, this Court thought it just and proper to refer the matter to a Larger Bench. 9. Learned AC to AG representing the State, however, submits that there is a distinction on facts between the present case and that of the cases viz. Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, Surendra Mahto Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. 9. Learned AC to AG representing the State, however, submits that there is a distinction on facts between the present case and that of the cases viz. Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, Surendra Mahto Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. 2021 (4) PLJR 393 and Ajit Kumar Mishra in which this Court has taken a view that a case of convict under Section 364A IPC would not be covered under clause (iv) ¼d½ of the Notification No. 3106 dated 10.12.2002. 10. Learned counsel submits that in the case of Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, the petitioner had been convicted under Section 364A and 379/34 IPC. There was no allegation against the petitioner that he had been involved in a case of planned murder. The case of such convicts who had been found guilty of planned murder were covered under exception clause (iv) ¼[k½ . 11. This Court, therefore, held that sub-clause ¼[k½ has to be read together with sub-clause ¼d½ and only then the Remission Board may arrive at a proper conclusion so as to take a view in which kind of cases the benefit of premature release may not be granted in terms of the policy. 12. It is further submitted that in the case of Anuj Kumar Gupta (supra), this Court went through the judgment of the Hon’ble Division of the High Court and found that in paragraph ‘18’ of the said judgment, it has been clearly held that there was no sufficient evidence on record to held the petitioner guilty of the charge under Section 364A or Section 120B of the IPC. He had been acquitted of those charges. But the Remission Board had wrongly recorded that the petitioner had been convicted under Sections 364A and 120B of the IPC. 13. It is further pointed out that in the case of Ajit Kumar Mishra, the petitioner had been convicted under Sections 364A/34, 302/34 and 201/34 of the IPC. Again, in this case, there was no charge of the petitioner having been found guilty of committing murder in a planned manner. Further, it is pointed out that in the case relied by the petitioner, one of the issues was as to whether the Notification No. 3106 dated 10.12.2002 would be applicable in case of those petitioners. Again, in this case, there was no charge of the petitioner having been found guilty of committing murder in a planned manner. Further, it is pointed out that in the case relied by the petitioner, one of the issues was as to whether the Notification No. 3106 dated 10.12.2002 would be applicable in case of those petitioners. This Court having discussed the materials on the record and the relevant provisions of the Bihar Jail Manual, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Manual of 2012’) recorded that the 2002 Notification would not apply in the case of the petitioner, in those cases. In fact, in the case of Ajit Kumar Mishra in paragraph ‘35’ of the judgment, this Court has specifically recorded that “....it is not the case of the Remission Board that the conviction of this petitioner was for the offence under Section 364A IPC with pre-meditation of mind...” 14. It is submitted that so far as the present case is concerned, this stands on a different footing and clearly distinguishable from the line of the cases earlier decided by this Court. In this case, learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court have recorded concurrent finding that the charge against the petitioner of entering into criminal conspiracy to kidnap the boy and planned murder has been proved. Consideration 15. Having heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned AC to AG for the State as also on perusal of the records, this Court finds that in the present case, this petitioner has been held guilty for the charges under Sections 364A/120B IPC. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has discussed in detail the charge under Section 364A read with Section 120B of IPC against this petitioner and has categorically held that the charge of conspiracy in relation to offence under Section 364A read with Section 120B of the IPC is found to have been proved beyond all reasonable doubts against this petitioner and one Pandit @ Sanjay Mahto. One of the appellants in criminal appeal, namely, Sanjit Das, had been given benefit of doubt in respect of charge under Sections 364A/120B IPC. The petitioner has also been found guilty under Sections 302/34 and 201 IPC for killing of a 5 years old son of the informant. In paragraph ‘59’ of its judgment, the learned trial court has held as under: “59. The petitioner has also been found guilty under Sections 302/34 and 201 IPC for killing of a 5 years old son of the informant. In paragraph ‘59’ of its judgment, the learned trial court has held as under: “59. There is no eye witness of the said murder. There is a chain of circumstances which is sufficient to establish the said murder of informant’s son Vicky, who was the only son of the informant. It is well established that the accused Ranjeet Das and Sanjay @ Pandit conspired together for kidnapping of informant’s son for ransom and Birendra Bhagat and Chintoo Singh kidnapped the informant’s son and they kept the victim at some places and in that course, Vicky identified accused Sanjay @ Pandit and they afraid and planned to kill the said boy and accordingly they took him under pulia and there accused Chintoo Singh killed the said boy in most barbaric manner and his dead body was recovered by the police of Fakuli O.P.” 16. The Hon’ble Division Bench held in the concluding paragraph of the judgment as under: “......Life imprisonment awarded to the appellants in this case would not be less than actual rigorous imprisonment for fourteen years. As a result, death reference is answered in negative and with modification in sentence in respect of offence under Section 302/34 of the IPC the appeal of Chintoo Singh stands dismissed. Similarly, the appeal of Birendra Bhagat, Ranjeet Kumar Ram and Pandit @ Sanjay Mahto also stand dismissed. The appeal of Sanjeet Das is allowed as he has been acquitted of all the charges....” 17. In the present case, the date of conviction of the petitioner is 24.01.2008, therefore in view of the law settled on the subject in the case of State of Haryana and Others vs. Jagdish, (2010) 4 SCC 216 , the policy of the government for premature release on the date of conviction would be applicable. At this stage, this Court will also examine as to whether on the date of consideration of the proposal of the petitioner for premature release, there was any liberal policy and the benefit of the same may come to the rescue of the petitioner. In this case, there is no issue with regard to applicability of the Notification No. 3106 dated 10.12.2002. In this case, there is no issue with regard to applicability of the Notification No. 3106 dated 10.12.2002. The said Policy of the Government contained in the Notification dated 10.12.2002 would be applicable in this case. 18. In this case, there is no issue with regard to applicability of the Notification No. 3106 dated 10.12.2002. The said Policy of the Government contained in the Notification dated 10.12.2002 would be applicable in this case. 18. At this stage, this Court would reproduce the relevant part of the Notification No. 3106 dated 10.12.2002 as under: ^^¼3½ 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= gksaxs%& ¼d½ ÁR;sd fl}nks"k canh] iq:"k vFkok efgyk] tks vkthou dkjkokl dk naM Hkqxr jgk@jgh gks rFkk tks naM ÁfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 433¼,½ ds Áko/kkuksa ls vkPNkfnr gks] fcuk ifjgkj ds de&ls&de 14] o"kksZ dh okLrfod ltk Hkqxrus ds rqjr ckn le;&iwoZ fjgkbZ d fy, fopkj djus gsrq ik= 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= 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 vof/k 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"kksZ ds lalheu dh ltk dkV yh gksA ¼Pk½ vkthou dkjkokl dk naM Hkqxr jgs oSls fl)nks"k canh tks dSUlj] ,M~l] Bhd uk gksus okyh fdMuh dh chekjh] g~n; ,oa 'okl ls twM+s vlk/; 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;rk fuEukafdr 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 vijk/kksa] vkfn tSls vijk/kksa ds fl)nks"k canhA ¼[k½ oSls canh] tks iwoZ fparu fd;s x;s fo"k;ksa ,oa lqfu;ksftr &#2338ax ls gR;k,a 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 dRrZO; ij jgus okys yksd lsodksa dh gR;k dk nks"kh gksA** 19. On a bare reading of the exception in clause (iv) ¼[k½ it would appear that those convicts who have been found guilty of committing murder with a pre-concert of mind and in a planned manner would not be entitled for benefit of premature release. The Manual of 2012 contains Rule 481 which provides the categories of prisoners who shall be liable to be eligible to be considered for a review of sentences and premature release by the Board. Rule 481 has been amended by Notification No. 3194 dated 26.05.2016 and Notification No. 2894 dated 10.04.2023. So far as the present case is concerned, while the amendments brought into Rule 481, vide Notification No. 3194 dated 26.05.2016 would be important in the context of this case, the amendment introduced vide Notification No. 2894 dated 10.04.2023 would be relevant only for academic discussion. Rule 481 of Manual of 2012 is being reproduced hereunder for a ready reference: “481. The following categories of prisoners shall be eligible to be considered for a review of sentences and premature release by the Board: (i) Every convicted prisoner whether male or female undergoing sentence of life imprisonment and covered by the provisions of Section 433A CrPC shall be eligible to be considered for premature release from the prison immediately after serving out the sentence of 14 years of actual imprisonment i.e. without the remissions. The following categories of convicted prisoner covered under Section 433A Cr.P.C. undergoing life sentence would not be entitled to be considered for premature release even after undergoing imprisonment for 20 years including remission: (a) Such convicts who have been imprisoned for life for rape, rape with murder, dacoity with murder, murder involving offence under the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, murder for dowry, murder of a child below 14 years of age, multiple murder, murder committed after conviction while inside the prison, murder during parole, murder in terrorist incident, murder in smuggling operation. [Ins. by Amdt. Notifn. No. 3194, dated 26.05.2016] [xxx] [Subs. By ibid] (b) Gangsters, contract killers, smugglers, drug traffickers, racketeers awarded life imprisonment for committing murders as also the perpetrators of murder committed with premeditation and with exceptional violence or perversity. (c) Convicts whose death sentence has been commuted to life imprisonment. [Ins. by Amdt. Notifn. No. 3194, dated 26.05.2016] [xxx] [Subs. By ibid] (b) Gangsters, contract killers, smugglers, drug traffickers, racketeers awarded life imprisonment for committing murders as also the perpetrators of murder committed with premeditation and with exceptional violence or perversity. (c) Convicts whose death sentence has been commuted to life imprisonment. (ii) All other convicted male prisoners not covered by section 433A Cr.PC undergoing the sentence of life imprisonment shall be considered for premature release after they have served at least 14 years of imprisonment inclusive of remission but only after completion of 10 years actual imprisonment i.e. without remissions. (iii) The female prisoners not covered by section 433A Cr.PC undergoing the sentence of life imprisonment shall be considered for premature release after they have served at least 10 years of imprisonment inclusive of remissions but only after completion of 7 years actual imprisonment i.e. without remissions. (iv) In such cases in which life sentence has been awarded by specifying that the convict shall undergo life sentence till the end of his life without remission or commutation, benefit of remission or commutation shall not be given to convict. [Ins. by Amdt. Notifn. No. 3194, dated 26.5.2016] (v) In such cases in which life sentence has been awarded by specifying that the convict shall not be released by granting remission or commutation till he completes a fixed term of 20 years or 25 years or like, remission or commutation shall not be granted to a convict until he completes the fixed term as prescribed in the sentence.” [Ins. by Amdt. Notifn. No. 3194, dated 26.5.2016] 20. On perusal of the aforementioned Notifications and Rule 481, as amended, it would appear that under 2002 Notification, clause (iv) ¼[k½ would cover the case of the petitioner. It is a case of planned murder of a 5 years old boy who had been kidnapped for ransom under a criminal conspiracy. The Policy which was in force on the date of conviction would be applicable. 21. This Court also finds that on the date of consideration of the case of the petitioner for premature release vide Annexure ‘7’ to Interlocutory Application No. 01 of 2023, there was no liberal policy which would come to the rescue of the petitioner. The Policy which was in force on the date of conviction would be applicable. 21. This Court also finds that on the date of consideration of the case of the petitioner for premature release vide Annexure ‘7’ to Interlocutory Application No. 01 of 2023, there was no liberal policy which would come to the rescue of the petitioner. Rather, under the amended provision of sub-clause (i) (a) of 481, a convict of murder of a child below fourteen years of age would be covered under the disqualification provision. This is being taken note of only to throw light on the amended provision. The fact remains that the policy applicable on the date of conviction of the petitioner would cover him in the exceptions and will debar him from getting benefit of premature release. So far as the case laws placed on behalf of the petitioner are concerned, this Court finds that the case of Pradeep Kumar Shrivastava, Surendra Mahto and Ajit Kumar Mishra are all distinguishable from the present case. While in those cases the issue of applicability of 2002 Notification had come up for consideration before this Court, in the present case that is not the issue. 22. Further, this Court agrees with the submission advanced on behalf of the State that those were not the cases of conviction of the petitioners) for murder with pre-meditation of mind. In case of Pradeep Kumar Shrivastava, this Court has categorically held that sub-clause ¼[k½ has to be read together with clause (iv) ¼d½ and only then the Remission Board may arrive at a proper conclusion as to in which kind of cases the benefit of premature release cannot be granted in terms of the said policy. 23. In the case of Ajit Kumar Mishra, once again, this Court recorded in paragraph ‘35’ that, “.....it is not the case of the Board that the conviction of this petitioner was for sentence under Section 364A IPC with pre-meditation of mind.....” 24. 23. In the case of Ajit Kumar Mishra, once again, this Court recorded in paragraph ‘35’ that, “.....it is not the case of the Board that the conviction of this petitioner was for sentence under Section 364A IPC with pre-meditation of mind.....” 24. The case of Munna Singh @ Ajay Sharma was a case of conviction of the petitioner in the case under Sections 364A/34 and 120B of the IPC, which was not a case of murder with pre-meditation of mind, this Court found that the issues which arose for consideration in the said case were akin to the issue already decided by this Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Srivastava and Ajit Kumar Mishra but what had happened was that the case of a co-convict in the same trial had earlier come to this Court in Cr.WJC No. 1330 of 2021 (Chitranjan Kumar @ Babloo Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.) and the same had been decided by a learned coordinate Bench of this Court on 05.08.2022 dismissing the writ application. It was found that the judgment of this Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Shrivastava was not brought to the notice of the learned coordinate Bench of this Court, therefore, there was a conflict in two learned coordinate Benches of this Court, hence, the Court referred the matter for consideration by a larger Bench. 25. To this Court, it appears that the reference made to the larger Bench in the case of Munna Singh @ Ajay Sharma would have no bearing on the decision of this case because this Court has already held that the facts of this case are clearly distinguishable from the case of Pradeep Kumar Shrivastava. 26. In the light of the discussions made hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the second ground stated in the decision of the Remission Board is correct and no illegality or infirmity may be found with the same. Since the decision of the Remission Board is to be upheld on the ground that this case would be covered under the exception clause (iv) ¼[k½ of the Notification No. 3106 dated 10.12.2002, this Court need not go into the issue of adverse report submitted by the Superintendent of Police. 27. This writ petition has no merit, it is dismissed accordingly.