IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.1273 of 2010 Chandra Roshan Pandit, son of Late Prabhu Narayan Pandit, Resident of Village and P.O. Amani, P.S. Mansi, District- Khagaria. ……….Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Home Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Bihar State Remission Board through the Chairman, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Inspector General (Prison). Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Jail Superintendent, Khagaria Division Jail, Khagaria, District-Khagaria. ………….Respondents. ----------- 5. 08. 03. 2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The main prayer in this criminal writ petition is for a direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for granting remission for pre-mature release in accordance with the policy decision of the State Government contained in circular of the Jail Department dated 21st January, 1984. From the Annexure- D to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, it appears that petitioner's case was considered for the purpose of grant of remission in the meeting of the Remission Board held on 09. 04. 2010. The minutes of the meeting show that case of the petitioner was considered in accordance with directions in 2 Cr. W.J.C. No. 380 of 2008 and it was decided not to allow pre-mature release of the petitioner because there was adverse report from the Superintendent of Police, Khagaria and the total period of custody including the period of set off was much less then required period of twenty years. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the decision of the Remission Board is arbitrary and hence it should be set aside and direction should be given for reconsidering the petitioner's case for remission. On going through the policy decision of the State Government dated 21st January, 1984, on which learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance, it is found that as per paragraph 2, the cases for remission of persons convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the offences punishable by death can be considered favourably for pre-mature release on fulfilment of two conditions mentioned as "Ka" and "kha". The second condition mentioned as "Kha" prescribes that the total period of custody including the period of set off should be twenty years. Since the decision of the Remission Board is based upon such policy decision of the State 3 Government, we do not find any reason to interfere with the same. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. It may be indicated that learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention towards a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Hariyana Vrs. Jagdish (Cr. Appeal No. 566 of 2010) dated 22nd March, 2010. The principle settled in that judgment is not in dispute but in the facts of this case that judgment is not of any help to the petitioner. m.p. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Gopal Prasad, J.)