IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.970 of 2011 1.Maksudan Yadav @ Masudan Yadav son of Basudeo Yadav 2.Amrik Yadav @ Amirak Yadav son of Basudeo Yadav 3.Sidheshwar Yadav son of Basudeo Yadav All resident of village-Ishapur, P.S.-Areari, District- Sheikhpura. …… ……..Petitioners Versus 1.The State of Bihar 2.The Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Bihar, Patna 3.The Law Secretary, Bihar, Patna 4.The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna 5.The Inspector General (Prisons), Bihar, Patna 6.The State Sentence Remission Board, Bihar, Patna through its Secretary 7.The Jail Superintendent, Shahid Jubba Sahani, Central Jail, Bhagalpur 8.The Jail Superintendent, Special Central Jail, Bhagalpur. ……. ……. Respondents ----------- 2. 29.9.2011. Three petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking pre-mature release. The three petitioners were convicted on 10.3.1997 and sentenced to life imprisonment. They had committed murder of three persons in order to prevent them from giving evidence and, thus, were interfering in course of justice. They had also filed Cr.W.J.C. No.622 of 2010 which was disposed of on 23.7.2010 (annexure-1). This court directed the State to consider the question of remission expeditiously within a period of three weeks. Accordingly, the Bihar State Sentence Remission Board took up the matter and by its order dated 11.10.2010 in respect of meeting dated 6.10.2010 (annexure-2), they have rejected pre-mature release of the petitioners on the ground that in view of notification no.3106 dated 10.12.2002 such convicts were not entitled to be released pre- maturely. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 2 order of Board is wrong. The petitioners were convicted on 10.3.1997 and as such circular and/or law as was obtaining then could be taken into consideration and not any subsequent circular and/or law in view of judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Jagdish since reported in (2010) 4 SCC 216. Learned counsel also relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of Kanti Devi Vs. The State of Bihar and others being judgment dated 23.8.2011 delivered in Cr.W.J.C. No.775 of 2011 which has also been annexed as annexure-4 to the writ petition. We have heard learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the petitioner. In our view in view of two judgments, as aforesaid, which have clearly held that position as obtaining on the date when conviction and sentence was passed would continue to apply notwithstanding changes therein subsequently. The findings of the State Sentence Remission Board refusing to release the petitioner cannot be sustained. We have, therefore, no option but the set aside the order of Sentence Remission Board, as contained in annexure-2 to the petition, and direct it to reconsider the matter in accordance with the judgments, as aforesaid, and pass necessary order thereon within three months by a speaking order in that regard. With these observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Md.S. (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.) ( Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.)