Patna High Court
Vinod Kumar Singh @ Jalim Singh vs The State Of Bihar Through The Home ... on 12 August, 2024
Author: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
Bench: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1285 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-13 Year-2007 Thana- RAGHUNATHPUR District- Siwan
======================================================
Vinod Kumar Singh @ Jalim Singh S/O Late Nagina Singh, R/O Village-
Chhitooni, P.S- Muriyari, Distt.- Balia (U.P).
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Home Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Inspector General(Prison), Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Siwan.
4. The District Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari.
5. The Superintendent of Police, Siwan.
6. The Superintendent of Police, East Champaran, Motihari.
7. The Probation Oficer, East Champaran, Motihari.
8. The Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Motihari.
9. The Bihar State Sentence Remission Review Board through its Chairman,
Home Secretary,Govt. of Bihar.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Amresh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sheo Shankar Prasad, SC-8
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 12-08-2024
Heard Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Mr. Amresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. Sheo Shankar Prasad, learned SC-8 for the State.
2. The petitioner in this case is aggrieved by and
dissatisfied with the decision of the State Remission Board
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Board'/ 'Remission Board') passed
on 20.04.2023 (Annexure '1') (hereinafter referred to as the
'impugned decision') whereby and whereunder the case of the
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1285 of 2023 dt.12-08-2024
2/5
petitioner for premature release has been rejected citing clause (iv)
(ka) and clause (iv) (kha) of the Notification No. 3106 dated
10.12.2002
. The petitioner has spent 17 years and 3 months in
actual incarceration and more than 20 years with remission.
Submission on behalf of the Petitioner
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that
earlier in the case of Pradeep Kumar Srivastava @ Pradip
Kumar Srivastava vs. the State of Bihar and Ors. reported in
2022 (1) PLJR 217, this Court has already taken a view that
clause (iv) (ka) of the Notification would not cover the cases in
which the conviction has taken place under Section 364A of the
Indian Penal Code. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the said
judgment has attained finality, still the Remission Board is, instead
of following the said judgment, relying upon the judgment of
learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Chitranjan Kumar @ Babloo Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.
(Cr.WJC No. 1330 of 2021).
3. Learned Senior Counsel submits that recently the
Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has in the case of Munna
Singh @ Ajay Sharma versus the State of Bihar and Others
(Cr.WJC No. 722 of 2023) considered the reference made by this
Court and upon a threadbare discussion of the two judgments and
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1285 of 2023 dt.12-08-2024
the relevant provisions of law, the Hon'ble Division Bench held
that the views expressed by this Court in the case of Pradeep
Kumar Srivastava @ Pradip Kumar Srivastava (supra) is the
correct view.
4. It is submitted that as regards the reports on which the
Remission Board has relied upon, the Board has not indicated as to
how the Probation Officer/ Superintendent of Police reports are
adverse to the petitioner. Such reports have not been brought on
the record. Referring to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Laxman Naskar v. Union of India reported
in (2000) 2 SCC 595 and Rajo @ Rajwa @ Rajendra Mandal
Vs. the State of Bihar and others reported as 2023 INSC 771
(Writ Petition (Criminal) No(s). 252/2023), learned Senior
Counsel submits that the reports of the Superintendent of Police as
well as the Probation Officer would be required to be examined
keeping in view the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court.
Stand of the State
5. Mr. Sheo Shankar Prasad, learned SC-8 for the State
has drawn the attention of this Court towards the statements made
in paragraphs '8', '9' and '10' of the counter affidavit. It is his
submission that the offence of kidnapping is as heinous as the
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1285 of 2023 dt.12-08-2024
offence of rape, dacoity and terrorist crimes and it is for this reason
that the Board has rejected the prayer for premature release of the
petitioner. Learned counsel has also referred the order dated
05.08.2022 passed in the case of Chitranjan Kumar @ Babloo
Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (Cr.WJC No. 1330 of 2021).
6. Having said so, learned SC-8 for the State does not
dispute that the views expressed by the learned Co-ordinate Bench
in the case of Chitranjan Kumar @ Babloo (supra) was subject
matter of the reference before the Hon'ble Division Bench in the
case of Munna Singh @ Ajay Sharma (supra) and the Hon'ble
Division Bench has not approved the views of the learned Co-
ordinate Bench in the case of Chitranjan Kumar @ Babloo
(supra).
Consideration
7. Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner and learned SC-8 for the State, this Court finds that the
Board has not considered the case of the petitioner keeping in view
the judgment of this Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar
Srivastava @ Pradip Kumar Srivastava (supra) which has
attained finality and the views expressed in the said case has been
approved by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of Munna
Singh @ Ajay Sharma (supra). Since the very consideration of
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1285 of 2023 dt.12-08-2024
the Board is based on a decision the views of which has not been
approved by the Hon'ble Division Bench, in the opinion of this
Court, the decision of the Board is liable to be set aside.
8. Accordingly, this Court sets aside the impugned
decision of the Board and directs the Board to consider the case of
the petitioner afresh keeping in view the judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Laxman Naskar (supra) and Rajo
@ Rajwa @ Rajendra Mandal (supra) and then the judgment of
this Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Srivastava @ Pradip
Kumar Srivastava (supra) and Munna Singh @ Ajay Sharma
(supra).
9. Such decision shall be taken within a period of two
months from the date of communication of a copy of this order.
This petitioner has already spent 17 years and 3 months in actual
incarceration and more than 20 years with remission, therefore, the
Board must consider the case afresh with all urgency.
10. This application stands allowed to the extent
indicated hereinabove.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
SUSHMA2/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 13.08.2024
Transmission Date 13.08.2024
