IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.812 of 2011 1. Md. Shakil @ Shakim 2. Md. Sheikh Yushuf Both sons of Sheikh Gafoor, resident of village-Dhavia Chak, P.S.- Mahagama, District-Godda. ………..Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Home Commissioner, Department of Home, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Home (Jail) Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 4. The Law Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Inspector General (Prison), Department of Home, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 6. The Additional Inspector General (Prison), Department of Home, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 7. The Superintendent, Sahid Jubba Sahni Central Jail, Bhagalpur. 8. The Probation Officer, Bhagalpur, District-Bhagalpur. …………..Respondents. ----------- 5 21.09.2011 A counter affidavit has been filed after service of copy on the learned counsel for the petitioner. On behalf of State with reference to Annexure-B to the counter affidavit, it is stated that in Sessions Trial No. 260 of 1978 three persons were convicted, namely Sultan Anshari, Md. Shakil @ Shakim and Md. Sheikh Yushuf. The later two are the petitioners before this Court. Their grievance is that though they were convicted and sentenced by the same judgment and order, so far as Sultan Anshari is concerned, he has already been released pursuant to the recommendation by the State Sentence Remission Board sometimes in January, 2011 but the two petitioners have not been released. 2 In the counter affidavit and particularly with reference to Annexure-B, learned counsel for the State points out that assessment for remission in respect of all the three persons were made on 30th of September, 2010. So far as Sultan Anshari was concerned, though he had completed 14 years of physical imprisonment with remission, the total sentence served by him was 19 years 6 months and 22 days and, as such, he is entitled to be released about 6 months after the date when the calculation was made. So far as petitioner no. 1 is concerned, he had, by that time, completed only 19 years 2 months and 10 days and naturally he would be required to serve further 8 months. Similarly, with regard to petitioner no. 2 on the said date he had completed 19 years 24 days only and would, thus, require to serve out almost one year thereafter. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that taking into account the period that has elapsed since 30.09.2010 both the petitioners have now virtually completed 20 years with remission. Learned counsel for the State submits that so far as petitioner No. 1 is concerned, the State Sentence Remission Board has already recommended the release of petitioner No. 1 on 16.9.2011 and the next meeting of the 3 said Board is scheduled to be held on 26.9.2011 when the case of petitioner No. 2 would be considered and in all probabilities recommendation for his release be issued. In view of these statements, it is expected that the State would act promptly and ensure their release in accordance with law. In view of the fair stand taken by the State, in this regard, we dispose of this writ petition, accordingly. Sanjeet (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.) (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.)