Patna High Court
Madan Singh @ Madan Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar Through The Home ... on 8 May, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1204 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-13 Year-2002 Thana- BIBHUTIPUR District- Samastipur
======================================================
Madan Singh @ Madan Kumar Singh, son of Late Ram Sewak Singh Village-
Sakh Mohan PS- Bibhutipur Dist- Samastipur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Home Secretary, Govt. of Bihar
2. The Inspector General (Prison), Govt. of Bihar
3. The District Magistrate, Bihar
4. The Superintendent of Police, Bihar
5. The Jail Superintendent, Sub Jail, Rosera, Bihar
6. The Bihar State Sentence Remission Review Board through its Chairman,
Home Secretary, Govt. of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Mayank Ranjan, Advocate
Mr. Sushant Kishore, Advocate
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Suman Kumar Jha, AC to AAG-3
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 08-05-2024
1. The Petitioner was convicted in Sessions Trial
No. 627A of 2003, arising out of Bibhutipur P. S. Case No. 13
of 2002, G. R. No. 52 of 2002, for the offences punishable under
Sections 302, 364/149 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 27(a) of the Arms Act, 1959, by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Samastipur, by his judgement and order of
conviction, dated 5th of July, 2012. He was sentenced to suffer
imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1204 of 2023 dt.08-05-2024
2/10
punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He was
further sentenced to suffer imprisonment for a term of 10 years
for the offence punishable under Sections 364/149 of the Indian
Penal Code. Both the sentences were directed to run
concurrently. The Judgement and Order of conviction and
sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge was
affirmed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 802 of 2012 with Cr. Appeal
(DB) 804 of 2012 by the Division Bench of this Court vide
judgement and order of conviction and sentence, dated 29 th of
September, 2015.
2. It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that the
Petitioner has completed 20 years of rigorous imprisonment
with remission. He filed an application before the Sentence
Remission Board for his release on remission of his sentence.
The Superintendent of Correctional Home, Superintendent of
Police and other recommending authorities duly recommended
the case of the Petitioner for favourable consideration before the
Sentence Remission Board, but by order dated 20 th of April,
2023, the proposal for remission of sentence of the Petitioner
was rejected by the Sentence Remission Board, Bihar.
3. The instant revision is for quashing of the order
passed by the Sentence Remission Board on 20th of April, 2023,
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1204 of 2023 dt.08-05-2024
3/10
whereby and whereunder, the prayer of the Petitioner was
rejected.
4. Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, learned Sr. Counsel on
behalf of the Petitioner submits before this Court that in a case
where a detenue was 17 years of actual incarceration and 20
years with remission after having been convicted under Sections
364 (A) / 34, 302/24 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code in
Sessions Trial No. 183 of 2003, arising out of Brahmpura
(Muzaffarpur) P. S. Case No. 20 of 2003, made an application
before the Sentence Remission Board for remission of his
sentence. The said application having been rejected, the
Petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court, which was
registered as Cr.W.J.C. No. 1195 of 2021 before a Co-ordinate
Bench. The Co-ordinate Bench observed in the aforesaid case
(Ajit Kumar Mishra v. The State of Bihar & Ors.) that the
Remission Board not only rejected the proposal for premature
release of the Petitioner without providing any cogent reason,
the decision is also in the teeth of the judgements of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and this Court, which were to be looked into as
precedents. Rule 478 of the Manual of 2012 clearly casts a duty
upon the Board to keep in view the general principles of
remission of sentences as laid down by the State Government or
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1204 of 2023 dt.08-05-2024
4/10
by the Courts, as also the earlier precedents in the matter and the
paramount consideration before the Board being the welfare of
the society at large, the Board shall not ordinarily decline a
premature release of a prisoner merely on the ground that the
Police had not recommended his/her release. In this case even
that ground was not available because the authorities, who had
submitted their respective reports, had recommended for the
premature release of the Petitioner. Thus, the Co-ordinate Bench
quashed the decision of the Remission Board in so far as it
relates to the Petitioner of Cr.W.J.C. No. 1195 of 2021. The Co-
ordinate Bench observed in paragraphs 40 and 41 as follows:-
"40. Before this Court would part
with this judgment, this Court must express it's
anguish/concern on the manner in which the
Remission Board is rejecting the proposals for
premature release. The Board is giving least
attention to not only the provisions of the
Manual of 2012 but also the judgment of the
Courts. In one or two lines, the proposals are
being rejected which do not indicate a proper
judicious application of mind by the Board. The
decision-making process of the Board must
have potential to generate faith in the public at
large. It is a high-powered body headed by the
Home Secretary of the State, in absence of the
Home Secretary, it is the Law Secretary-cum-
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1204 of 2023 dt.08-05-2024
5/10
Legal Remembrancer who will chair the
meeting, Inspector General, Prisons and
Correctional Services is the Member Secretary.
The District and Sessions Judge nominated by
the High Court, Inspector General of Police
nominated by the Director General of Police
and the Director Probation Services are the
other members. They are learned people who
are occupying the highest position in their
respective services and that is why they have
been conferred with huge responsibility to
consider the cases of premature release. The
Law Secretary and the District and Sessions
Judge are from the Superior Judicial services
and they have been trained to examine the
decisions taken by the executives as well as by
its own court of law in the hierarchy of courts,
therefore, their duty to ensure that the decision
of the Board be well informed by reasons and
in accordance with the statutory provisions as
also the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court and the High Court is at greater echelon.
This Court would expect that while all the
members of the Board shall play significant
role in the decision-making process, the Law
Secretary and the District Sessions Judge must
take upon themselves to ensure that the
decisions to which they are parties are well-
reasoned, supported by law and precedents.
With these words and with due respect to each
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1204 of 2023 dt.08-05-2024
6/10
and every one in the Board, this Court would
request them to rise to the occasion and take
care of the spirit of our Constitution's vision in
the light of which these provisions for grant of
premature release are to be looked into.
41. This Court finds that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court while parting with its'
judgment in the case of Rajo @ Rajwa @
Rajendra Mandal (supra) has directed to mark
a copy of this judgment by the Registry of this
Court to the Home Secretary, Government of
Bihar who is the Chairperson of the Remission
Board as well as the concerned Presiding
Judge through the Registrar, High Court of
Judicature at Patna."
5. The learned Sr. Counsel on behalf of the
Petitioner also refers to an unreported decision of this Court in
Munna Singh @ Ajay Sharma v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
(Cr. Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 752 of 2023). The above-
mentioned writ petition was referred to the Division Bench in
view of the contradictory decision in the case of Ajit Kumar
Mishra (supra) and Pradeep Kumar Srivastava v. The State of
Bihar & Ors. The Division Bench concluded by observing as
follows:-
"8.1. Thus, in view of the aforesaid
discussions, we are of the view that the view
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1204 of 2023 dt.08-05-2024
7/10
taken by the learned Single Judge in the case of
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava @ Pradip Kumar
Srivastava (supra) as well as Ajit Kumar
Mishra (supra) is a correct view and in fact the
respondent State has implemented the said
decision. Thus, the said decisions have attained
finality.
8.2 In view of the aforesaid
discussion, the impugned decision dated
09.09.2022
taken by the State Sentence
Remission Board is hereby quashed and set
aside. The matter is remitted to the Board for a
fresh consideration of the proposal of the
Petitioner for premature release keeping in view
the reports which have been taken note of
hereinabove and the discussions made by this
Court in this judgement citing the precedents.
The respondent Board shall take fresh decision
and pass a final order within a period of two
months from the date of receipt/production of a
copy of this judgement and order."
6. The learned Sr. Counsel on behalf of the
Petitioner also refers to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Rajo @ Rajwa @ Rajendra Mandal v. The State
of Bihar & Ors., reported in AIR 2023 SC 4084. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court held:
"25. ...... It would be appropriate if
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1204 of 2023 dt.08-05-2024
the Remission Board reconsidered the
Petitioner's application for remission afresh,
considering the reports of the police and other
authorities, the post-prison record of the
Petitioner, the remissions earned (including that
which is earned for good conduct) his age,
health condition, family circumstances, and his
potential for social engagement, in a positive
manner. The concerned presiding judge is
hereby directed to provide an opinion on the
Petitioner's application for premature release,
by examining the judicial record, and provide
adequate reasoning, taking into account the
factors laid down in Laxman Naskar (supra)
within one month from the date of this
judgement. With the benefit of this new report,
the Remission Board may reconsider the
application - without entirely or solely relying
on it, but treating it as valuable (may be
weighty) advice that is based on the judicial
record. Given the long period of incarceration
already suffered by the writ Petitioner and his
age, the Remission Board should endeavour to
consider the application at the earliest and
render its decision, preferably within three
months from the date of this judgement."
7. In the instant case, I have already recorded that
the Petitioner was convicted under Sections 302, 364/149 of the
Indian Penal Code.
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1204 of 2023 dt.08-05-2024
8. The recommending authority and other
authorities reports are required to be considered by the
Remission Board submitting favourable report of premature
release of the Petitioner. However, the Remission Board equated
the criminal wrong committed by the Petitioner with heinous
offences such as rape, Dacoity, terrorist crimes etc. The Board
was also of the view that the offence committed by the
Petitioner was an organized murder in a premeditated an
organized manner.
9. This Court, considering the ratio of the
judgements passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in Ajit Kumar
Mishra (supra) as well as the Division Bench in Munna Singh
(supra) and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajo
@ Rajwa @ Rajendra Mandal (supra) is of the view that the
wrongful act committed by the Petitioner cannot be equated
with a case of murder caused in organized and premeditated
manner.
10. For the reasons stated above, the impugned
order, dated 20th of April, 2023, passed by the Sentence
Remission Board is quashed and set aside.
11. The Sentence Remission Board is directed to
take fresh decision with regard to the Petitioner on his prayer for
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1204 of 2023 dt.08-05-2024
premature release positively within a period of two months from
the date of communication/receipt of a copy of this order,
considering the afore-mentioned decisions of this Court and the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and pass a reasoned order.
12. A copy of this order be sent to the Chairman,
Sentence Remission Board for information and necessary
action.
13. With the aforesaid observation / direction, this
petition stands allowed.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
skm/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 18.04.2024
Uploading Date 08.05.2024
Transmission Date 08.05.2024
