IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.942 of 2010 1. UMASHANKAR RAI son of Late Indradeo Rai 2. Brijnandan Rai son of Raj Narayan Rai 3. Mangala Rai son of Brijnandan Rai. All resident of village- Gobalapur, Police Station- Sheosagar, District- Rohtas. . . . . . . . Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Home Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. Inspector General (Prison), Home Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. Jail Superintendent, Mandal Kara, Sasaram. 5. The Superintendent of Police, Rohtas. 6. Officer-in-charge of Sheosagar P.S., Rohtas. . . . . . . Respondents. ----------- 4/ 23.11.2010 Heard counsel for the parties. In the instant writ application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 02.03.2009, passed by State Sentence Remission Board, Government of Bihar, whereby the Board has rejected the prayer of the petitioners to release them from jail custody. The petitioners have further prayed for directions to the respondents to release them from jail custody, as they are entitled to be released under the policy prevailing on the date of their conviction on 06.01.1990 vide S.Tr. No. 342 of 1988. The main contention of the petitioners is that in view of judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors Vs. Jagdish, reported in (2010) 4 SCC 216, the pre- mature release of a life convict is to be decided on the basis of policy prevailing on the date of his conviction and not on the date of consideration of pre-mature release by the appropriate body. 2 All the three petitioners were made accused in Sheosagar P.S. case no. 130 of 1987 under Sections 396 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, giving rise to S.T. No. 342 of 1988. All the petitioners were ultimately convicted under Sections 396 of the Indian Penal Code on 06.01.1990. The appeal and the S.L.P. preferred up to the Apex Court also failed. The petitioner submits that as per policy of the Bihar Government contained in Letter no. 03/81-550 dated 21.01.1984 issued by Law Department a life convict convicted of an office for which one of the sentences is death or the life convicts serving the life sentence after commutation of death sentence, shall be set free from jail only (a) if he completes 14 years of actually physical incarceration, (b) total period of his actual incarceration including remissions earned is 20 years. The petitioner submits that they have completed more than total period of 20 years of imprisonment including 14 years of actually physical incarceration. He further submits that by now in fact all the three petitioners have completed about 23 years of imprisonment including more than 17 years of actual physical incarceration. He further submits that the pre-mature release application of the petitioner was rejected by the State Sentence Remission Board, in view of 2002 policies. Learned counsel submits that Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors Vs. Jagdish (Supra) held that the policy prevalent on the date of conviction would be the guiding policy for consideration of his pre- 3 mature release and not the policy which would be prevalent on the date of such consideration. Counsel for the State submits that the pre-mature release of the petitioners have been rejected in view of 2002 policy, as they are involved in heinous offence under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of 2002 policy. This Court in a similar issue in case of Anita Devi Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (Cr.W.J.C. No. 1090 of 2009), heard analogous with Cr.W.J.C. No. 476 of 2010 (Ramanuj Sharma Vs. State of Bihar & Ors) considered the issue in same detail and disposed of these cases by common order dated 12.10.2010. This Court after relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors Vs. Jagdish (Supra) held that the policy prevalent on the date of conviction would be the relevant policy, which should be taken into account for consideration of pre-mature release. As the issue is no more or Res- integra, this Court directs the respondents, Government of Bihar as well as State Sentence Remission Board to consider the case of pre-mature release of petitioners on the basis of 1984 policy, which was prevalent on the date of their conviction in the year, 1990 in view of pronouncement of Apex Court in case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Jagdish, reported in (2010) 4 SCC 216. With the aforesaid direction, this application is allowed to the extent mentioned above. In case, if any representation is being 4 filed by the petitioners before the State Sentence Remission Board, the same should be disposed of preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)