Ranjeet Kumar Das vs The State Of Bihar Through Chief ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 672 Patna

Patna High Court

Ranjeet Kumar Das vs The State Of Bihar Through Chief ... on 29 January, 2024

Author: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad

Bench: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                      Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.105 of 2023
            Arising Out of PS. Case No.-105 Year-2006 Thana- NAGAR District- Vaishali
     ======================================================
     Ranjeet Kumar Das, Son of Dukhan Das, R/O Village- Bari Yusufpur, P.S.-
     Industrial Area, (Town Police Thana), at Hajipur, District- Vaishali.

                                                                          ... ... Petitioner
                                       Versus
1.   The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna
2.   The Joint Secretary Cum Director Administration Cum Nodal Officer Home
     Department Bihar, Patna
3.   The Joint Secretary Cum Director Administration Cum Nodal Officer Home
     Department Bihar, Patna
4.   That State Sentence Remission Board through the Principal Secretary, Home
     Department, Govt. of Bihar Patna.
5.   The Secretary Law Department Government of Bihar, Patna.
6.   The Additional Director General of Prison Bihar Patna.
7.   The Inspector General Jail And Reforms Services Bihar, Patna.
8.   The Assistant Inspector General Jail And Reforms Services, Bihar.
9.   The Superintendent of Shahid Khudi Ram Bose, Central Jail, Muzaffarpur,
     Bihar.

                                               ... ... Respondents
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner       :        Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate
                                       Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
     For the State            :        Mr. P.N. Sharma, AC to AG
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
     CAV JUDGMENT

      Date : 29-01-2024


                     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. Patna High Court CR. WJC No.105 of 2023 dt.29-01-2024

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 Patna High Court CR. WJC No.105 of 2023 dt.29-01-2024

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) (d) 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) (d) of Notification No. 3106 dated Patna High Court CR. WJC No.105 of 2023 dt.29-01-2024

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. The State of Bihar and

others reported as 2023 INSC 771 (Writ Petition (Criminal)

No(s). 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 Patna High Court CR. WJC No.105 of 2023 dt.29-01-2024

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) (d) of the

Notification No. 3106 dated 10.12.2002. It is submitted that in the

case of Anuj Kumar Gupta @ Sethi Gupta versus the State of

Bihar and Others reported in 2002 (1) BLJ 67 and Ajit Kumar Patna High Court CR. WJC No.105 of 2023 dt.29-01-2024

Mishra Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2023 (4)

PLJR 782, this Court has relied upon its earlier judgment in the

case of Pradeep Kumar Srivastava @ Pradip Kumar

Srivastava vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 2022 (1)

PLJR 217. In all the judgments, it has been held that the clause

(iv) (d) 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) (d) 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 versus the State of Bihar and Patna High Court CR. WJC No.105 of 2023 dt.29-01-2024

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 versus the

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. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 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 Patna High Court CR. WJC No.105 of 2023 dt.29-01-2024

not be covered under clause (iv) (d) 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) ([k).

11. This Court, therefore, held that sub-clause ([k) has to

be read together with sub-clause (d) 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.

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.105 of 2023 dt.29-01-2024

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 petitioner(s). 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 Patna High Court CR. WJC No.105 of 2023 dt.29-01-2024

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. 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 Patna High Court CR. WJC No.105 of 2023 dt.29-01-2024

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

reported in (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, Patna High Court CR. WJC No.105 of 2023 dt.29-01-2024

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:-

"¼iii½ 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 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 /kkjk 433 ¼,½ ds izko/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 izkIr 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] ân; ,oa "okl ls twM+s vlk/; jksx ,oa vUl ,slh NwvkNwr okyh chekjh ls xzLr gksa] tSlk fd fpfdRldksa ds ,d cksMZ }kjk izekf.kr gks] ;fn mUgksaus 5 o'kksZa ds okLrfod vFkok ifjgkj lfgr 7 o'kksZ dk naM Hkqxr fy;k gksA ¼iv½ 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 Patna High Court CR. WJC No.105 of 2023 dt.29-01-2024

¼[k½ oSls canh] tks iwoZ fparu fd;s x;s fo'k;ksa ,oa lqfu;ksftr <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 dRrZO; ij jgus okys yksd lsodksa dh gR;k dk nks'kh gksA "

19. On a bare reading of the exception in clause (iv) ([k),

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 Patna High Court CR. WJC No.105 of 2023 dt.29-01-2024

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. 2[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, 2[xxx]]

(b) Gangsters, contract killers, smugglers, drug traffickers, racketeers awarded life imprisonment for committing murders as also the perpetrators of murder committed with pre- meditation 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.

1. Ins. by Amdt. Notifn. No. 3194, dated 26.05.2016

2.Subs. By ibid Patna High Court CR. WJC No.105 of 2023 dt.29-01-2024

[(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.]

[(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.]"

20. On perusal of the aforementioned Notifications and

Rule 481, as amended, it would appear that under 2002 Notification,

clause (iv) ([k) 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. 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

3. Ins. by Amdt. Notifn. No. 3194, dated 26.5.2016 Patna High Court CR. WJC No.105 of 2023 dt.29-01-2024

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 petitioner (s) for murder with pre-meditation of

mind. In case of Pradeep Kumar Shrivastava, this Court has

categorically held that sub-clause ([k) has to be read together with

clause (iv) (d) 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.....". Patna High Court CR. WJC No.105 of 2023 dt.29-01-2024

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. The 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.

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.105 of 2023 dt.29-01-2024

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) ([k) 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.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) SUSHMA2/-

AFR/NAFR                 AFR
CAV DATE                 15.01.2024
Uploading Date           29.01.2024
Transmission Date        29.01.2024