The Patna High Court, while allowing a petition filed seeking quashing of the order dated 27.08.2021 passed by the Bihar State Sentence Remission Board rejecting the premature release application of the petitioner, held that the Board is not supposed to act mechanically as such an approach has the potential to strike at the heart and subvert the concept of remission.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner in the present case, having been convicted for the offense punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, was sentenced to death by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Fast Track Court. The sentence awarded to the petitioner was commuted/converted into life imprisonment by the Hon’ble High Court. A proposal for the premature release of the petitioner was submitted. The application filed by the petitioner for premature release was rejected by the Remission Board. Hence, the present petition.
Contentions of the Petitioners:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Petitioner has been in custody since 31.07.2001 i.e. more than 22 years. The case of the petitioner is covered by Section 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and considering the object of the premature release, the petitioner deserves proper consideration of his application for premature release.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Superintendent of Police had recorded his opinion from which it appeared that the petitioner has a criminal antecedent and there were 17 cases of heinous offenses pending against him. He argued that there is a serious threat to the people if this petitioner is released prematurely.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the report of the Probation Officer is completely general in terms and the other reports such as the report of the Superintendent of Police.
The Court observed that while considering an application for premature release, the Board has to keep in mind the general principles of remission of sentences as laid down by the State Government or by the Courts, as also the precedence in the matter. The Court said that it is evident from the impugned order that the Board has not at all applied its own mind as is required. The Board is not supposed to act mechanically as such an approach has the potential to strike at the heart and subvert the concept of remission. It is likely to defeat the purpose behind the premature release i.e. reformation. The learned Presiding Officer in his report simply reiterated all those facts which are part of the report of the Superintendent of Police.
The Court said that the case of the petitioner for grant of premature release is required to be considered afresh.
The decision of the Court:
The Patna High Court, allowing the petition, held that the impugned order was passed by the Board in a routine and mechanical manner by just referring to the reports of the Superintendent of Police and the Presiding Officer of the court.
Case Title: Md Azimuddin v The State of Bihar & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
Case no.: Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.146 of 2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Anuj Kumar
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. P.N. Sharma
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
