[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Lakshman Saw vs The State Of Bihar Through The Chief ... on 29 January, 2026
Author: Arun Kumar Jha
Bench: Arun Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1246 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-193 Year-1988 Thana- ARWAL District- Jehanabad
======================================================
Lakshman Saw, Son of Late Bihari Saw, Resident of village - Bhadasi, P.S.
and District - Arwal.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna,
Old Secretariat, Patna. Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, Ministry of Home, Government of Bihar, Patna.
Bihar
3. The State Sentence Remission Board through its Chairman, Government of
Bihar, Patna. Bihar
4. The Law Secretary-cum-Legal Remembrance, Department of Law, Govt. of
Bihar, Patna. Bihar
5. The Director General of Police, Government of Bihar, Patna. Bihar
6. The Director, Probation Services, Government of Bihar, Patna. Bihar
7. The Inspector General (Prison) and Jail Reforms, Government of Bihar,
Patna. Bihar
8. The Additional Director General of Police, Criminal Investigation
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna Bihar
9. The Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Gaya. Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Manish Kumar No.2, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Prabhu Narayan Sharma, AC to AG
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 29-01-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the
petitioner seeking following reliefs :
"(i) For quashing the order dated 05.03.2020
passed by the Bihar State Sentence Remission
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1246 of 2022 dt.29-01-2026
2/9
Board through its Chairman, Government of
Bihar, Patna (Respondent No.3), whereby and
where under the recommendation for pre-
mature release of the petitioner has been
rejected.
(ii) For issuance of direction to the respondent
authorities particularly the Remission Board to
consider the case of the petitioner for pre-
mature release as the petitioner has already
completed his custody more than 20 years
without remission.
(iii) And/or any other relief or reliefs to which
the petitioner may be found entitled to in
course of hearing of this writ application".
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner was an accused in Arwal P.S. Case No. 193 of
1988. He had been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge-
cum-Special Judge, TADA, Jehanabad under Section 3(3)(1) of
the TADA Act, 1987 and Sections 307/149, 302/149, 353/379 of
the Indian Penal Code and Sectiion 27 of the Arms Act vide
judgment of conviction dated 21.07.2003 passed in G.R. Case
No. 7/1992, arising out of Arwal P.S. Case No. 193 of 1988 and
has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life
with fine vide order of sentence dated 04.08.2003. Being
aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the petitioner
and other convicts filed Cr. Appeal Nos. 1285 of 2003 and 1297
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1246 of 2022 dt.29-01-2026
3/9
of 2003 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which came to be
dismissed vide judgment dated 02.04.2004. The learned counsel
further submits that after completion of required period of
incarceration for consideration of premature release, the
concerned respondent requested the prescribed authorities to
submit recommendations for premature release of the
petitioner. Thereafter, the Probation Officer, Jail Superintendent,
the Superintendent of Police and the Presiding Officer have
recommended the case of the petitioner for his premature
release. After obtaining the reports from all the prescribed
authorities, the Jail Superintendent sent the proposal of the
petitioner for his premature release to the Bihar State Sentence
Remission Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'). The
Board in its meeting dated 05.03.2020 rejected the proposal of
the petitioner for his premature release.
4. The learned counsel further submits that the Board
in a routine and mechanical manner, rejected the proposal of
premature release of the petitioner in the light of Para (iv)(a) of
Notification No. 3106 dated 10.12.2002 of the Home (Special)
Department, Govt. of Bihar, according to which the prisoner
convicted for the heinous offences such as rape, dacoity,
terrorist crimes etc. would not be eligible for his premature
release.
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1246 of 2022 dt.29-01-2026
4/9
5. The learned counsel further submits that
notwithstanding the fact that there is favourable report of all the
prescribed authorities, his case for premature release was not
considered, though the petitioner had already completed 14
years of his physical incarceration and 20 years with remission
till the month of February, 2016.
6. The learned counsel further submits that the Board
has ignored the orders passed in similar matters by this Court,
such as, the order dated 21.11.2016 passed in Cr.WJC No. 1053
of 2016, the order dated 15.12.2016 passed in Cr.WJC No.1245
of 2016, the order dated 20.12.2016 passed in Cr.WJC No.
1288 of 2016. The learned counsel further submits that one
Tribhuwan Sharma, who is co-convict, filed Cr. WJC No. 748
of 2017 through his son Chandra Kant Kumar and in that case
also, this Court directed the Board to consider the case of the
petitioner and finally, he had been released from the custody.
7. The learned counsel further submits that the
judgments of this Court in Cr.WJC No. 861 of 2021 (Md.
Alauddin Ansari Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.), Cr.W.J.C.
No. 2128 of 2018 (Sikander Mahto Vs. The State of Bihar &
Ors.), Cr.WJC No.1090 of 2009 (Anita Devi Vs. the State of
Bihar & Ors.), Cr.WJC No. 476 of 2010 (Ramanuj Sharma
Vs. the State of Bihar & Ors.) Cr.WJC No.1053 of 2016
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1246 of 2022 dt.29-01-2026
5/9
(Ramanuj Sharma Vs. the State of Bihar & Ors.), Cr.WJC
No.1027/2019 along with Cr.WJC No.53 of 2019
(Chandrakant Kumar Vs. the State of Bihar & Ors.), have
attained finality and the State respondents cannot take any stand
contrary to the ratio laid down by this Court in the
aforementioned judgments.
8. The learned counsel further submits that if the co-
convict from the same judgment has already been released from
the custody, then the rejection of premature release of the
petitioner is totally baseless and discriminatory in nature. In
fact, the Board has not considered this aspect of the matter that
the Notification dated 10.12.2002 is not applicable at all in the
case of the present petitioner. In support of his contention, the
learned counsel refers to the decision dated 19.04.2024 of
learned Coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr.WJC No. 1011 of
2021.
9. The learned counsel further submits that the action of
the Board for not granting premature release of the petitioner is
discriminatory in nature since the Board on the basis of pick and
choose method granted premature release to the life convict
even in the heinous offences.
10. The learned counsel further submits that in the case
of one Shyam Choudhary who was convicted along with the
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1246 of 2022 dt.29-01-2026
6/9
petitioner and whose pre-mature release was denied by the
Board approached this Court vide Cr.WJC No. 1503 of 2017
and this Court after hearing the parties set aside the refusal of
the premature of the writ petitioner and directed the Board to
consider the case of the petitioner afresh.
11. The learned counsel further submits that it is
evident from the decision of the Board that they are still
rejecting the applications for premature release without looking
into the judgments of this Court, otherwise in the case of the
petitioner who has been convicted prior to 15.09.2007, the
rejection would not have taken place by applying the
Notification No. 3106 dated 10.12.2002.
12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State
submits that the recommendation of the Board, rejecting the
proposal of the premature release of the petitioner in the light of
the Notification dated 10.12.2002, is quite sustainable in the
eyes of law. However, he concedes that the case of petitioner
stands on same footing with that of case of Tribhuwan Sharma
as well as Shyam Choudhary, as both of them have been
convicted in the same trial and by the same judgment.
13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
rival submission of the respective parties and perused the
records.
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1246 of 2022 dt.29-01-2026
7/9
14. As already noted, the proposal of premature release
of the petitioner was rejected in the light of clause (iv) (ka) of
the aforesaid Notification dated 10.12.2002.
15. Now, clause (iv) of the Notification dated
10.12.2002
reads as under :
"(iv) Ineligibility for premature release.
The following category of convicted prisoners
undergoing life sentence may not be considered eligible
for premature release:-
(a) Prisoners convicted of the heinous
offences such as rape, dacoity, terroist crimes etc.
(b)Prisoners who have been convicted for
organised murdered in a premeditated manner and in
an organised manner.
(c) Professional murderers who have been
found guilty of murder by hiring.
(d) Convicted prisoners, who commit murder
while involving in smuggling operations or who are
guilty of murderer of public servants on duty."
16. It has been contended on behalf of the parties that
recently in Cr.WJC No. 722 of 2023 (Munna Singh @ Ajay
Sharma versus the State of Bihar and Others), the Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court has approved the judgment of this
Court rendered in the case of Pradeep Kumar Srivastava @
Pradip Kumar Srivastava versus the State of Bihar and Others
reported in 2022 (1) PLJR 217 and Ajit Kumar Mishra versus
the State of Bihar and Others reported in 2023 (5) BLJ 783.
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1246 of 2022 dt.29-01-2026
17. By virtue of the judgment of this Court and the
views expressed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, it
is now settled that the first valid meeting of the Board had taken
place on 15.09.2007, therefore, in all such cases in which the
judgment of the trial court came prior to 15.09.2007, the earlier
policy would be acted upon by the State Government.
18. It appears in number of cases, this Court has
noticed that prior to the said date, the Board had been
recommending the cases of the convicts keeping in view the
earlier policy in this regard.
19. The learned counsel for the State accepts at the Bar
that now after the Hon'ble Division Bench judgment of this
Court in Cr.WJC No.722 of 2023, the views expressed by this
Court in the earlier cases will be deemed to have been approved
and in such circumstance, this decision being in the teeth of the
judgments of this Court may be set aside and the matter may be
remitted to the Board for fresh consideration.
20. In the light of discussion made hereinbefore, this
Court is of the considered view that the impugned order has
been passed by the Board in a routine and mechanical manner
which is not in consonance with the judicial pronouncements of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court since there
being an admitted position that the Notification dated
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1246 of 2022 dt.29-01-2026
10.12.2002 cannot be applied in the case of the petitioner.
21. Therefore, this writ application succeeds. The
decision of the Board dated 05.03.2020, so far it concerns the
petitioner, is quashed.
22. This Court directs the Board to convene a meeting
within a period of four weeks from today and consider the
proposal for premature release of the petitioner afresh in the
light of the judgments of this Court which have been taken note
of hereinabove for a ready reference. The Board is expected to
take appropriate decision without deviating from the judicial
pronouncements on the subject. Let such decision be taken and
communicated to the petitioner within a period of two months
from today.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
V.K.Pandey/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 29.01.2026
Transmission Date 29.01.2026
