Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Writ No.258 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Rama Singh, S/O Budha Singh, R/O Vill:- Khaira Mohan, P.S:- Goh, Distt- Aurangabad. 2. Nagina Sharma S/O Late Hardev Sharma R/O Vill:- Muzharpur, P.S. Goh, Distt:- Aurangabad. 3. Ram Bilas Sharma, S/O Tribhuwan Sharma, R/O Vill;- Barpa, P.S- Pauthan, Distt:- Aurangabad. 4. Jay Ram Sharma S/O Late Gaya Singh R/O Sagarpur, P.S Goh, Distt:- Aurangabad. 5. Brij Nandan Singh S/O Late Gaya Singh R/O Sagarpur, P.S Goh, Distt:- Aurangabad. 6. Rajendra Sharma S/O Surajdeo Sharma R/O Sagarpur, P.S Goh, Distt:- Aurangabad. .... .... Petitioners. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Secretary, Home Dept., Govt. of Bihar. 3. The Chairman, Bihar State Sentence Remission Board, Patna 4. The Inspector General (Prisons), Bihar, Patna 5. The Superintendent, Central Jail (Special), Bhagalpur 6. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Gaya. .... .... Respondents. ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amish Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. P.K. Verma, AC to SC-26. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI CAV ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI) 2 08.02.2012 Petitioners, Rama Singh, Nagina Sharma, Ram Bilas Sharma, Jay Ram Sharma, Brij Nandan Singh, Rajendra Sharma have preferred instant writ seeking issuance of writs / direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the part of decision dated 08-01-2010 passed by Bihar States Sentence Remission Board, Patna so far it relates to the petitioner, by which the petitioners prayer for remissions by way of premature release in accordance with Section 433 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected. Before coming to the points involved in this writ petition, Patna High Court CR. WJC No.258 of 2011 (7) dt.01-02-2012 2 salient features of the facts is to be noted down which would enable its appreciation in its right perspective. Petitioners along with others stood arrayed as an accused of Goh P.S. Case No.3/1977 registered under [STATUTE] and 27 of the Arms Act. Investigation thereafter commenced followed with submission of charge sheet and accordingly, they face trial and ultimately convicted by the court of First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, in Sessions Trial No.45/1978, 26/1980, vide judgment dated 31.08.1987 under [STATUTE] and were sentenced to undergo R.I. for life. No sooner than they were taken into custody to serve out sentences. Subsequently thereof, so many criminal appears were filed against the aforesaid judgment of conviction and sentence before the Hon’ble Court and so far petitioners are concerned, it happens to be Cr. Appeal No.462/87 which was dismissed vide judgment dated 10.07.1990. The aforesaid finding was upheld in criminal appeal filed before the Hon’ble Apex Court. Accordingly, petitioner who were let of on bail by the Hon’ble High Court during pendency of Cr. Appeal No.462/87 surrendered and since 1995 are in custody and so they have remained under custody consecutively for 21 years including the period of remission as provided. To support the same Annexure-3 & 4 has been annexed so obtained under Right to Information Act. Then it has been submitted that the case of the petitioners for premature release in accordance with Section 433 of the Cr.P.C. after granting remission, so provided, was taken into consideration and as per Annexure-5, their case was ultimately rejected. The sole ground for rejection happens to be that petitioners were involved in a ghasty crime Patna High Court CR. WJC No.258 of 2011 (7) dt.01-02-2012 3 relating to murder of seven persons over dispute of right to franchise. Although, some of the co-accused were released on the eve of golden jubilee of independence. Some of accused, namely, Bhukamp Sharma, Dinesh Sharma, Ramadhar Sharma, Raj Kishore Sharma, Naval Sharma, Dudheshwar Sharma were released in the year 2005-2007 (at different stages) after completion of 14 years of custody. So, a grievance has been made by putting an allegation that Bihar State Sentence Remission Board was not fair in its action. Hence accordingly be directed to reconsider petitioners case after strucking down the decision dated 08-01-2010 in part affecting right of petitioners. To support the plea the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the background of introduction of Section 433(A) of the Cr.P.C. so being clutched by Section 432 as well as 433 of the Cr.P.C., the Government took decision and formulated certain guidelines for the purpose of providing remission and the same was issued by the Government of Bihar, Law Department No.03/81-55/dt. 21-01-1984 where under certain points were formulated for attracting application of remission in favour of convict having under incarceration. At the initial stage, the period already undergone during course of investigation as well as during trial was not taken up into consideration for counting the period of incarceration. However, the matter was taken up and decided by the constitutional bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Bhagirath Vs. Delhi Administration and as per direction, the previous notification so circulated vide letter no.3/81-55/dt. 21.01.84 was amended vide notification no.3/81-3115 dated 25.05.1985 permitting inclusion of Patna High Court CR. WJC No.258 of 2011 (7) dt.01-02-2012 4 under trial period of incarceration for calculation. Subsequently, the State Government made amendment in the earlier notification of year 1984 vide notification no.63/01-3106/ dated 10th December, 2002 and in the aforesaid background as it appears, the case of the petitioner has been rejected. Furthermore submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in another decision reported in 2010(4) SCC page 216 has held that the policy which was existing on the

Applicable IPC Section: 148

Statute Text:
Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. Rioting armed with deadly Weapon. Whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.